Health Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support.

I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill.

A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know.

Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Labour Members who had that commitment in their manifesto may want to reflect on how much more commitment we have to constituents because they are our constituents than we would if we shared constituents from day to day. We often go out of our way—I hope—to look after our constituents because of that sense of ownership and obligation. It is only because we are allocated those people and they are our responsibility that we go that extra mile. Why would doctors not be the same, and can colleagues not see the sense of what my right hon. Friend is saying?

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS.

There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice.

People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done.

The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to.

At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Owing to the lack of early intervention for my constituent Elizabeth and her son William, he has missed countless hours and days and weeks of schooling at a critical point in his development.

At a drop-in that I hosted last week, I met a woman called Annika. Her daughter Winnie has cerebral palsy, and her EHCP clearly states that she requires a physiotherapist, but the family have been forced to arrange that for themselves. Countless other families are in the same position. I think that every single Member in this House will have encountered similar constituency cases, and it is just not good enough.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is making a most powerful speech. We will all have experienced the frustration of parents with a child whose EHCP lacks the health element. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, furthermore, the abolition of Healthwatch might remove one of the few elements that externally and independently marks the homework of the NHS, and that we are moving to a situation in which the NHS itself, and Ministers, will collect the data and mark their own homework, and we will lose yet another of the few tools that a frustrated parent has to hold the system to account?

[Jen Craft]

I agree that there needs to be better accountability in the health service. It currently does not work, and the mechanisms by which we can hold healthcare bodies to account are few and far between. I believe that it is most acutely felt in paediatric care and in the special educational needs and disabilities system, where a mechanism for holding public bodies to account already exists: EHCPs. The idea that the responsibility should fall entirely on local authorities is misguided, because roughly 50% of what a child with an EHCP needs in order to access education is healthcare, which should be provided by a healthcare service. There must be better accountability and transparency for parents, and for their children, when that does not happen. I know that parents often have to go out of their way and spend, on average, £8,500 a year on their child’s healthcare so that they can access education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation.

What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost.

Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB.

That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement.

The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is giving a typically punchy speech. Does he agree that every signal suggests that this measure has not been thought through? While the Government have conceded by saying, “Oh we’re going to have local government coming back onboard,” how could they have conceived of health and social care without local government being engaged? On every front, it looks as if they have not thought it through, abolishing everything from the safety inspectorate to Healthwatch England. We have a Government that are out of control, spending tens if not hundreds of millions on redundancies with no clear end destination in view, wasting a huge opportunity.

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions.

That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that.

Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots.

Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I absolutely agree. In order to achieve genuine equality of access, the Government must go outside-in; in other words, they must design provision around the hardest places to serve—my hon. Friend gives a great example—and then work inwards from there.

“If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the remote outback, we can meet the needs of people living in rural and coastal England.”

Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) when he was Health Secretary. Not only do I agree with him, but I challenge the current Health Secretary to turn her Government’s own words into law. We got it wrong with broadband; we cannot afford to get it wrong with people’s health.

In North Norfolk, I see the struggle for health access and outcomes at first hand. People living on the coast start with half the access that those in inland areas have. Conventional service models assume that people can access healthcare from any direction, but for our coastal communities, half of the area is the sea. The sea may be beautiful, but it does not run a bus service, staff a clinic, or provide a patient catchment. Coastal communities, which may have sparse populations and poor transport, need more local points of care, not fewer. On top of that, the services we do have are burdened by exceptionally long waits. We are not unique in this; some of the poorest healthcare access and outcomes can be found in communities like mine.

We know the challenges for health and wellbeing in these areas from the excellent work of Professor Sir Chris Whitty. He spelled out that we suffer from shorter life expectancy and higher rates of major chronic illness, higher rates of alcohol and drug-related harm, and more cardiovascular and chronic lung conditions. These are very serious problems, and they cannot remain an afterthought in national health policy. National systems must not mistake population density for severity of need.

Besides, when problems are caught earlier and treated faster, it leads to better outcomes. That is one of the reasons why I was so frustrated to be told by the Government before recess that they have “no plans” to provide an urgent treatment centre at Cromer hospital in my constituency, although it would transform access to urgent care across North Norfolk. I am putting the Department on notice today: my constituents and I will continue pressing the case until Ministers reconsider.

Let me tell the House what these inequalities mean in human terms. They mean that constituents like Kelly, who has been waiting more than 70 weeks for a hip replacement, are living every day in pain. Another constituent, Samantha, told me that she waited 30 weeks to see a gynaecologist. The NHS standard is 18 weeks. Appallingly, our wait times made a young woman so unwell that she was forced to sacrifice her education; during the wait, her symptoms worsened to the point that she had to step back from the degree that she was studying for.

I heard from Ian, who has metastatic prostate cancer and requires treatment at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It is a half-day trip for him by car to get the essential treatment that he needs. He told me that he considered using a local bus service, but that it would be an hour just to get there. He lives with a damaged bladder, due to his condition, and he told me that it makes life “very unpleasant”. I would go further and say that it is undignified and dehumanising.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on behalf of rural and coastal areas. One word that he has not used yet is “age”. Age is the clearest proxy for health need that there is. It is not deprivation or anything else—it is age. The distribution of health funding in this country has, under successive Administrations, failed to recognise that and allocate funding accordingly. That is why cancer patients in his constituency and mine find themselves with chronically less spent on them than cancer patients in areas where there are many fewer of them.

[Steff Aquarone]

I could not agree more. That is one of many respects in which rural and coastal communities around the country have much more in common with each other than with their inland neighbours just a few miles away. Theoretically available treatment becomes practically inaccessible if it requires a journey to be made without reliable toilet access, as in Ian’s case, and in cases where access to private transport is more limited, as in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Kelly, Samantha, Ian and so many more are entitled to the same access to good treatment and the same chance of good health as people living in urban and inland communities. It is absolutely right for the Government to pursue this Bill, and I support their aim wholeheartedly, but I challenge them to assess the Bill based on who is left behind, not just who can be helped. Accept this amendment, or explain why rural and coastal communities do not merit explicit protection.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. If that works well for his local system, there is nothing to stop it. How the ICB undertakes its role has to be determined locally to make it most effective for local circumstances, and it can undertake that role as it sees fit.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unreported removals from waiting lists.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Over 85% of waiting list removals are made as a result of patient care, and since the end of the pandemic, unreported removals have been below pre-pandemic levels. Record levels of elective activity are being delivered by NHS staff, enabling us to cut waiting lists and meet our interim target of 65% of patients being seen within 18 weeks—the highest performance in over four years.

[Graham Stuart]

People in Beverley and Holderness want high-quality and speedy care, not massaged waiting list numbers that suit Labour narratives. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government had form on this as well, because the National Audit Office repeatedly found that the numbers were manipulated when waiting lists were similarly put on a pedestal. The Minister has the new Secretary of State by her side. Can she reassure people in Beverley and Holderness that we will have genuinely improved healthcare, rather than widespread manipulation and the cleansing of waiting lists to suit political purposes?

[Karin Smyth]

If anyone has forgotten, the last Labour Government left the NHS in a better state than it was in under successive Governments. That is not in dispute in terms of waiting list targets or, indeed, patient satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman might want to look again at the record.

The point that the Conservatives seem to be intent on following up forever is an important one. Some 85% of the activity is a result of direct patient care. Validation, both clinical and clerical, is a long-standing routine practice of waiting list management. At roughly 15%—it was slightly higher before the pandemic—the rate is no different now from what it has been before, so it is not the case that something different is going on here. What we are doing is making sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—I appreciate that there are many other local problems in his system at the moment—can be clear that we have the right people on the right list for the right care in the right place by the right clinicians. That is what we are determined to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

Patients are 30 times more likely to wait two years for care in Scotland than in England. Labour has ended austerity and provided Scotland with the biggest funding increase since devolution. The question is: where has the money gone?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

May I pursue the point about coastal communities and cancer care? A young dad in Withernsea, a coastal town in my east Yorkshire constituency, went to the doctor repeatedly saying that there was something wrong with him and was repeatedly told that he was fine, before being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He survived, but only just. What, in real terms, will happen to ensure that communities such as those in Withernsea can see decent cancer care and proper diagnosis, especially given that, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), Hull university teaching hospitals NHS trust is one of the worst-performing trusts in the country?

[Mrs Hodgson]

The national cancer plan is a key part of our work to build an NHS fit for the future, and it explains how we will make England a world leader in cancer outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents will now be able to see a GP much sooner than they could before the 2024 election, which will ensure that they can get that earlier diagnosis, which is the only thing that will help them to survive and live longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and congratulate him on his work campaigning on this issue. Regular support and advice from a Parkinson’s disease nurse specialist is highlighted as a key intervention in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on Parkinson’s disease in adults. The forthcoming 10-year workforce plan will support the 10-year health plan by addressing workforce shortages and skills gaps. This will be crucial to delivering quality and accessible care for those with Parkinson’s.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Ironically, getting care out of hospitals and into the community very much depends on a functioning hospital. Last month, I met the group chief executive officer of Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust, following news that it had been placed in segment 4 of the NHS acute trust league table. She acknowledged the urgent need for improvement and expressed clear ambition for change, but she will not be able to deliver the transformation of that important hospital alone. Could I meet the Secretary of State or Ministers to discuss what more can be done to support that hospital on its road to transformation and improvement?

Points of Order

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government and Labour Members, I associate myself fully with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). Oliver Colvile was a decent man and a wonderful public servant—we all share that view. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will absolutely follow his example when it comes to following the Whip.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Oliver Colvile was loved by Members from across this House. As it will soon be the 175th anniversary dinner of the Lords and Commons cricket team, it is worth remembering one of the most famous wickets ever taken, when Oliver Colvile bowled and took that wicket in India, on live television, watched by tens of millions. I had never seen a triumph like it. He will be much missed. He was always loved and respected in this House.

[Mr Speaker]

His brother is the famous Sky cricket commentator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

We remain in close contact with all our colleagues in all the devolved Administrations. I will certainly be following up with officials as we develop the research programmes that we are working on, and as we integrate eating disorders into the broader work we are doing around mental health. Getting 8,500 more mental health workers and creating Young Futures hubs and mental health crisis centres is just some of the work that this Government are doing on this important issue.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

6. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of urgent eyecare in east Yorkshire.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

The right hon. Member’s constituents can access urgent eyecare services from Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust 24 hours a day, seven days a week and from a range of high-street optical practices locally. Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning primary and secondary eyecare services to meet local need. As part of our 10-year plan, we are keen to explore how we can make best use of our primary eyecare workforce as we consider shifting more healthcare into the community.

[Graham Stuart]

Would it was so. My constituent Scott Young, a 34-year-old father-to-be from Beverley, was left permanently blind in one eye after NHS failures, including a two-month delay to urgent surgery following a diabetic haemorrhage, which the trust now blames on admin mistakes. When the same issue threatened his remaining sight, identical delays occurred until I intervened. Yet the Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust response contained factual errors, including claiming that a heart condition delayed surgery even though it had not been diagnosed when the delay occurred. Does the Minister agree that such failings demand accountability, and what steps can he take to improve the administrative processes within our hospitals?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am very sorry to hear of Scott’s experience. What the right hon. Gentleman has outlined is clearly unacceptable. I will absolutely follow up on that issue with officials and report back to him. We cannot allow that sort of poor performance to exist, and those responsible must be held to account.

Alcohol and Cancer

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is really good to hear about the fantastic work going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are working with systems to move to a neighbourhood health model by building on existing good practice, particularly around the development of multidisciplinary teams. Aylesbury is an outstanding example of that. Ahead of the 10-year health plan’s publication, local communities can continue to make progress by utilising the neighbourhood health guidelines that were published back in January.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Dental patients with untreated need end up in hospitals. In places like Hedon in my constituency, we have seen more and more dental practices moving away from the NHS. I have a constituent who found it took her three years to get her child their first check-up, and that dental practice has now ceased to look after NHS patients. She also cannot get the NHS treatment she deserves herself, even though she had a child in February. What in the 10-year plan will change that and ensure that everyone can get access to NHS dentistry?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Member is right to point to children’s dental health. After we won the election in July, I looked across my portfolio and it was pretty much a car crash in every aspect, thanks to the incompetence of previous Governments. Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all is that the biggest reason five to nine-year-old children are admitted to hospital is to have their rotten teeth removed. That is a Dickensian state of affairs. We are working with the British Dental Association on contract reform. We have got to incentivise NHS dentistry, do away with the false economy set up under the last Government and get dentistry back to where it needs to be.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Chancellor’s statement and our commitment to the NHS. I know he has been working so hard on this issue on behalf of RAAC hospitals and Frimley Park hospital since he became a Member of Parliament last year, and we are four-square behind that work getting on. It is at the beginning of a very long queue in the new hospital programme. It is one of the things we inherited—we wish it was a better inheritance, but we are working with what we have. We have put the new hospital programme on a firm financial footing, and Frimley Park is at the beginning of that queue. We are very keen that people get on with it very quickly, because there are very many other people waiting behind them.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is absolutely right about social care. We have a system in which healthcare is dependent on social care—Lord Darzi says so, and I think even Ministers have said so—yet all funding is going into the NHS, not into social care. We are fundamentally pouring the money into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The Minister pretends the exact opposite of the truth. Will she share a more honest assessment with the House? What went on? Labour had 14 years to think about it, and here we are with the funding going into the NHS. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), said, the Minister is following on from the last Conservative Government and pouring more and more money into an unreformed NHS with a social care system underneath it that is broken, and she is not doing anything about it.

[Karin Smyth]

I have already given a history lesson about some of those 14 years. When the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in the coalition together, we had a commitment, a promise and a cross-party agreement; the Conservatives then got into government by themselves and broke it, so we are where we are. We want to invest in social care, which is why we have announced the £4 billion. We are seeing a very interesting alliance going on between our Green and Conservative colleagues; they agree on something, as we saw in the Lobby last week.

Parkinson’s Disease

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like many colleagues across the House, I was proud to mark Parkinson’s Awareness Month last month. This annual observance is more than a symbolic gesture; it is a vital opportunity to raise awareness, challenge misconceptions, and advocate for the thousands of people across the UK who live with Parkinson’s every day. It is also a time to reflect on the progress we have made and, more importantly, the work that still lies ahead.

Parkinson’s is a condition that touches every corner of our society. It affects over 150,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 172,000 by 2030. In my constituency of Colne Valley, there are an estimated 253 people living with Parkinson’s. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, our friends and our family members, and behind each number is a story of resilience, of daily challenges and of hope.

Parkinson’s is a progressive neurological condition. It is complex, degenerative and life-limiting. It affects movement, speech, cognition and mental health. There is no cure, and while treatments exist to manage symptoms, their effectiveness often diminishes over time. The condition manifests differently in each person: some may experience tremors and stiffness, while others struggle with depression—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree—the role they play is vital in terms of supporting this community. To be truthful, the people I have met in those groups are inspirational, as is the work they do, so I thank them for that.

NHS England’s medicine safety improvement programme, running from 2024 to 2027, is a welcome step. It aims to ensure that time-critical medications are administered promptly in hospitals, but we must ensure that the programme is fully implemented and that its findings are acted upon across all NHS trusts. Timely medication is a basic right for Parkinson’s patients, and we must treat it as such. In England, people with Parkinson’s still face prescription charges, unlike in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These charges can be a significant burden, especially for working-age patients, who may already face reduced income due to their condition. Research shows that eliminating these charges could reduce hospital admissions and save the NHS money, but Parkinson’s remains absent from the list of conditions exempt from charges—a list that has not been meaningfully updated in more than 60 years. It is time for a review. We must ensure that no one is forced to choose between their health and their finances.

New treatments such as Produodopa, which was approved for NHS use in 2024, offer hope for those with severe symptoms. This medication could be life-changing for patients whose symptoms are not well managed by the existing treatments. However, due to staffing and funding constraints, many hospitals are unable to offer it. We must ensure that all patients who need innovative treatments, such as Produodopa, can access them, and that the NHS is equipped to adopt new therapies quickly and equitably. Innovation must not be a postcode lottery.

I will now turn briefly to my constituency. Since being elected, I have had the privilege of meeting Dr Chris Ryan and Mrs Liz Ryan MBE. Over a cup of tea in February, they shared their experiences and highlighted the urgent need for better Parkinson’s care in Kirklees. Liz, who received an MBE for her services to education, continues to be a pillar of our community despite her diagnosis. Together they have organised local events, including a Parkinson’s choir that brings joy and support to many.

Following our meeting, I wrote to Kirklees council and Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust to ask what more can be done. I also contacted the Department of Health and Social Care regarding regular consultations and better medication management, and the Minister informed me that the neurology service specification is being updated, and will be published later this year. Although remote consultations are helpful they are not always suitable for Parkinson’s patients, who require regular, holistic in-person care. I urge the Government to consult with Parkinson’s UK during this review.

I also had the pleasure of attending the Big Sing for Parkinson’s on World Parkinson’s Day. The event was organised by the “Movers & Shakers” podcast, and it was a celebration of community, resilience and hope. As I said earlier, it was absolutely inspirational; to witness that community, and the strength of community spirit and determination to drive through with their lives, was incredible. The group also published the Parky charter, outlining five key needs for people with Parkinson’s—needs that are still unmet. This year, two Big Sings were held: the one I attended in Huddersfield, and the other in London. They brought together people in solidarity and song.

As we move forward, let us remember that Parkinson’s Awareness Month is not just about raising awareness, but taking meaningful action. It is about listening to those with lived experience, supporting families and carers, and ensuring that our health system is equipped to meet the needs of every person living with Parkinson’s.

Parkinson’s is a condition that demands our attention, compassion and action. By addressing workforce shortages, supporting patients from diagnosis, ensuring timely medication, removing financial barriers, and embracing innovation, we can dramatically improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We have five Back-Bench speakers. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will let hon. Members make a judgment on that. We will start with the ever-succinct and effective Ed Morello.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart—especially after that flattery. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate.

Parkinson’s, as has been said, is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. But behind every statistic is a family, a carer, a friend—someone whose daily life is shared by this illness. My constituents have written to me about their experiences of loved ones living with the disease. The stories they have shared are heart-breaking, with long waits for specialist care, difficulties accessing the right medication on time, and exhausting battles for financial and social support. I know I speak for many here when I say that we must do more.

Parkinson’s is a progressive condition, with more than 40 possible symptoms affecting movement, sleep, mental health, speech, eating and swallowing. Nearly half of those living with it will experience anxiety or depression, and more than half will develop psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Across the country, there are long waits for specialist care, a lack of multidisciplinary teams with Parkinson’s experience, and serious difficulties in accessing vital medication in a timely and consistent way.

We urgently need to overhaul the way that care is provided for people with Parkinson’s, particularly in rural areas. That begins with primary care. GPs are the front door to the NHS, yet we know that continuity of care is beginning to be eroded. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone with a long-term condition such as Parkinson’s to have access to a named GP—someone who can understand their history and needs, and can advocate for timely referrals and co-ordinated care.

This is not just about funding more; it is about funding smarter. Primary and community care can prevent some hospital admissions and provide medication and essential support for those who cannot easily travel. That is especially important in rural areas like mine, where distance, isolation and sparse public transport already pose significant barriers to treatment.

Care services are struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s and have been stretched to breaking point by Government decisions and a lack of funding. Weldmar Hospicecare in West Dorset is a lifeline for so many families. Earlier this year, NHS Dorset announced a £400,000 cut to its fast-track funding, starting next April. Weldmar also faces a £600,000 increase in costs as a result of rising national insurance contributions and other pressures. It already raises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through charitable donations, and that is unsustainable in the long term.

The same goes for our community pharmacies, which are vital for people with Parkinson’s, especially in rural communities. They are not just dispensaries; they provide healthcare consultations, medical reviews and early advice, often acting as the first point of contact for worried patients. Yet the funding model they rely on is outdated and inadequate, leaving many rural pharmacies on the brink of collapse. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we must ringfence funding for essential services and not allow it to disappear into ever-wider budget allocations.

We owe it to everyone living with Parkinson’s, and to the families, the carers and the health workers supporting them, to do better. That means listening to the voices of those people affected, ending the postcode lottery and making sure that no one, wherever they live, faces this devastating disease alone.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Admirably delivered.