Parkinson’s Awareness Month

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate at the end of Parkinson’s Awareness Month.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to my old friend and former colleague Margo MacDonald, SNP Member of this House briefly in the 1970s and Member of the Scottish Parliament for the SNP and as an independent from 1999 until her death in 2014. Anyone who knew Margo will remember that she was a force of nature and that anything she did was done with her typical determination, wit and good humour. I credit Margo with my limited understanding of Parkinson’s and its variability, because for all the time she was in the Scottish Parliament she had Parkinson’s, but it did not stop her being one of the most effective communicators and advocates for her constituency.

In my constituency, some 222 people are believed to be living with Parkinson’s as we speak. I want to thank those who care for them—professionals, family members and volunteers alike—for their hard work and commitment. As we have heard, there is no cure for Parkinson’s, and current treatment can manage only some of the symptoms. It can be a frightening disease, and one that can lead to depression and despair.

In Scotland alone there are approximately 30 new diagnoses every week. In 2024, Parkinson’s UK in Scotland produced an excellent report called “Scotland Can’t Wait”. In the report, Parkison’s UK in Scotland highlighted the many challenges that people with Parkinson’s currently face and the problems that will arise if the challenge of the increasing number of people being diagnosed is not addressed. The report drew on experience and robust data and makes some very important points.

It highlights that investing in professional staff who can offer the kind of specialist treatment that people with Parkinson’s need would be an important step forward. Existing staff are already stretched, and if action is not taken soon they will be pushed to breaking point. Ensuring that people get the appropriate medication when it is needed, whether they are in hospital or at home, is also vital. Crucially, the mental health impacts of Parkinson’s need to be addressed, including Parkinson’s dementia, which can be frightening for patients and their families.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that since the year 2020, less than half a million pounds was spent by the Scottish Government on research into Parkinson’s disease. By my calculations, that is something like £34 per person suffering from the disease in Scotland. That seems to me to be a woeful amount of money. I recognise that the effort to find a cure for Parkinson’s will inevitably have to be a global exercise, and one that this Government, I am sure, will want to play a large part in. But everyone has to get their act together and up their game, including the Scottish Government. At the end of the day, we want to find a preventive approach to Parkinson’s, but a cure along the way would be helpful too.

Parkinson’s UK in Scotland called its report “Scotland Can’t Wait”, and rightly so. The 30 people diagnosed every week cannot wait, and the 222 people in Glasgow West certainly cannot either. It is time for Governments on both sides of the border to act and work with Parkinson’s UK and Parkinson’s UK in Scotland to ensure that we do better for people with Parkinson’s for their families and the staff who support them. Parkinson’s UK has shown us the way; it is now time that we follow it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for bringing forward this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. Everyone has made excellent contributions that were thoughtful and moving.

Right now in the UK around 153,000 people are living with Parkinson’s, and that number is set to increase to 172,000 by 2030. Richard from Burgess Hill in my constituency is one of those many thousands. I count Richard as a friend; he is someone I greatly admire for his courage and tenacity. I was lucky enough to speak to him recently and get a brief insight into his life with Parkinson’s. He told me that something he has noticed since his diagnosis is increased anxiety. He says that he now gets anxious about everyday things in a way that he never used to. He also said that the part of experience he has found most depressing is knowing that it is, in his words, “a one-way street”, where his condition can only be managed by using ever-increasing levels of medication.

From even a short conversation with Richard, it is clear just how complex people’s experiences can be. It is also clear to me that we need to do better, as many hon. Members have said, and that we have solutions already but we just need to get on with it. Parkinson’s is the fastest-growing neurological condition in the world. It is progressive, it fluctuates, and it affects everything from movement, swallowing, sleep and speech through to mental health. There are over 40 symptoms, and each person’s experience is unique. Half of those living with the condition, like Richard, experience anxiety or depression, and up to 60% can develop psychosis. They are also six times more likely to develop dementia.

Parkinson’s UK has identified some of the major failings in care today. They include long waits for specialists, a lack of access to expert multidisciplinary teams, people not getting their medication on time in hospital, and limited mental health and dementia support. There is also a postcode lottery when it comes to advanced treatments such as Produodopa and deep-brain stimulation. Those failings have consequences: unplanned hospital stays, severe complications and worsening mental health. Parkinson’s costs the UK an incredible £3 billion a year. In England alone, unplanned hospital admissions cost £277 million. So this is not only a health crisis but one with significant economic impacts.

I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues believe that the system must change urgently and that the Government have to act. First, we have got to fix the basics. To do that, we need to review the medicines supply chain. People with Parkinson’s must get their meds on time. We also need to expand the MHRA’s capacity, reversing the 40% workforce cut, and reducing the time for treatments to reach patients.

Secondly, we need to put care and support front and centre. We can do that by giving people with Parkinson’s access to a named GP—someone who knows their story and their condition—and by making mental health a priority, not an afterthought. That means regular mental health check-ups, easier access to services through walk-in hubs and restoring the mental health and dementia care targets that the Government have abandoned.

Thirdly, the Government must step up and support carers. Behind every person with Parkinson’s, there is often someone else who cares for them; someone who is quietly exhausted. We must provide respite breaks and ensure that carers have access to paid leave. We need to fix the broken social care system once and for all. It is time for those cross-party talks—no more delays. As I have said in this place before, we will clear our diaries to get those talks happening. This issue is simply too important for diary clashes. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any clarity and a date on those vital talks.

Finally, we have got to help people live and work with dignity. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues are campaigning for: a new right to flexible work; better accessibility standards for public spaces; a stronger blue badge framework; the incorporation of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law; and the closing of the disability employment gap. We can do that if we implement a dedicated strategy for disabled workers, simplify the application process and introduce adjustment passports so that workplace support follows the person, even if their job changes.

This is a health issue, an economic issue and a social justice issue. As others have said, it is about human dignity. We owe it to people living with Parkinson’s that we must do better, not some day but now. Let us build a future where those with Parkinson’s like Richard get the proper help and support they deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Hospitals

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome this Opposition day debate on hospitals and the state of the NHS, which is on its knees after 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, but I find myself blinking in the dappled light of a new reality.

Reading the motion as drafted, one could be forgiven for thinking that an unchallenged Tory Government over the last 14 years alone were responsible for the chaos that we witness but, pinching myself to wake from the dream, I recall that the Liberal Democrats were part of that Government for five long years. They may want to forget about it, but we remember it. We remember the rose garden, where the blue Tories and the yellow Tories harmoniously, hand in hand, drew up their plans to devastate our health and social care public services through the austerity programme. We remember the bedroom tax, which was voted for multiple times by the Liberal Democrats. We remember the Lansley reforms and the Liberal Democrat spokespeople squirming in television interviews as they tried to justify the chaos into which they were about to plunge the NHS.

Under the previous Labour Government, we had the highest satisfaction levels and lowest waiting times, but what we inherited in July last year was an unmitigated disaster. The Tory-Lib Dem coalition tore up the last Labour Government’s plans for a new hospital in my constituency as part of the austerity programme. The staff at that hospital do a remarkable job, and I put on record my gratitude to them, even when I was wandering around dressed as a giant bunny rabbit on Sunday.

The Tories and the Liberal Democrats—nobody else—are responsible for the 14-year delay in getting a new hospital in Watford. If they had not done what they did, we would have had a new hospital by now, but we do not. Not a brick has been laid. They should hang their heads in shame at this total betrayal of Watford’s residents. The new hospital programme was not funded beyond March, and as the Prime Minister said in response to my question to him a few weeks ago, the hospitals existed only in the imagination of Boris Johnson.

I welcome this motion recognising the devastating state of the NHS, but let us be acutely aware that responsibility for that lies with the Liberal Democrats, who table this motion, and with the Conservatives in the previous Government. It is all very well to want to magic a hospital out of thin air, but it will be this Labour Government who finance and deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Picturing the hon. Member in a rabbit outfit has woken us all up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I am proud to declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. The Royal Berks is an incredibly important place for me. I have been treated there many times, friends and family work there, and my constituents rely on the dedication of its hard-working staff. The way that this important community asset was treated by the previous Conservative Government is a scandal. They have left a record of broken promises and a building that in many places is literally crumbling.

Looking at the Conservative legacy, before the 2024 general election, they introduced a seven-year delay to the construction of the new hospital in 2023. That is a seven-year delay for something that was never funded in the first place. The Conservatives’ dithering and delays have resulted in £7 million being wasted at the Royal Berkshire hospital on surveys, investigations and the development of a hospital programme that was never going to go anywhere, and the Conservatives knew that all the time. Their behaviour over the last five years has been shameful, and they have deceived my constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) has highlighted many of the issues at the Royal Berkshire, so I will not repeat his points, but there is a maintenance backlog amounting to £102 million, and staff have recently told me that an additional £300 million is needed for maintenance. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a proper maintenance programme for the next 20 years? I have to thank her for her guarantee that when the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust requires funds to purchase land for the new site, her Department will provide those funds. I would be grateful if she could confirm that that position has not changed, and also that the planned cuts and savings at the trust to balance its budget will have no impact on its ability to deliver vital maintenance at the hospital site.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Danny Chambers to wind up the debate for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me whether it is in order that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who opened the debate for the Conservatives, was not in her place for the close of the debate? I think that is discourteous to the House, and I would like your advice on how we rectify this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The point of order is most definitely on the record. It is a point of courtesy to be here for the close of a debate if you are here for the opening. No doubt, Opposition Front Benchers will make that very clear to the Member.

NHS Pensions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

It is important that people have confidence in the pension system. That is why we took action in July on coming into office to understand the depth of the problems that occurred under the previous Government. This is a complicated issue, which is why we want to be clear with people that there will be no financial detriment to them. We will continue to work with employers and trade unions to ensure that the issue is resolved as quickly as possible, in line with the timelines I have outlined.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The delays will be deeply worrying and will make financial planning very difficult for those affected, all of whom are people who have dedicated their working lives to supporting the NHS and tirelessly saving lives. NHS workers and their families are being left in the dark by Government delays and may as a result miss out on using their full allowances, which is unacceptable—they deserve better.

The revised delivery plan prioritises members based on their likelihood of facing financial detriment, so clearly some financial detriment is expected for those who are impacted. Can the Minister estimate what the likely financial detriment is of missing the statutory deadline, or how much compensation, as she just mentioned, is likely to be paid? Can she tell us why the NHS Business Services Authority has failed to meet the deadlines? In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the Minister said that there are 112 people working on it. Will she confirm whether that is likely to be sufficient to ensure that future deadlines are met?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member might be forgiven for thinking that we are starting from a zero-sum game, but we already have restrictions, as people must be 18 to purchase cigarettes and vapes. Shop workers are already challenging customers on their age, so the regulations do not come from nowhere. Secondly, if you read the Bill, you would know that there is a date specified that would be very clear on identification—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short and the term “you” refers to me in the Chair.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is easier to distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old. Usually, the younger the age, the easier it is to make that determination, but it is much more difficult when people are older, yet that distinction will have to be made.

The idea may be that the cost of the licence will be so expensive that many small retailers will be squeezed out of the market, and the only outlets will be bigger stores where there are security guards. However, the sale of tobacco provides an important part of the income of many small retailers. Whether we like it or not, we are putting a burden on people who will find that they are exposed to dangers and difficulties, and will be subject to the law if they make the wrong decision.

The second issue, which has been touched on today, is what happens when people cannot get the tobacco that they want. Where do they go? They go to people who are prepared to sell it to them illegally. We cannot run away from the fact that the sale of illegal tobacco is already lucrative, especially because of the tax increases that we have introduced. It is lucrative for criminal gangs and it funds many of their activities. We have heard statistics that 7% of cigarettes and 33% of rolling tobacco are already sold by criminal gangs. In Northern Ireland, it is probably far higher because paramilitaries were involved in the trade and used it to fund their activities for so long. If anybody thinks, “Oh well, we’ll deal with that problem when it comes,” look at the history of Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds found its way into the coffers of terror gangs and action was not taken, because it was sometimes too hard or too difficult to trace the things. Yes, action has now been taken, but do not think that we are going to have an all-out assault on the booming industry that this legislation will produce.

My last point about the Bill being impractical is that it cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as part of the EU single market, we are under the tobacco products directive. The Irish Republic tried to introduce similar legislation and found that it could not because of that directive. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, challenging the Government to amend the Windsor framework so that the legislation will apply across the United Kingdom. This is not a counsel of despair because I believe that there is an alternative, as set out in the amendment. Indeed, the Government’s own modelling suggests that a much more practical way is to set the age limit at 21.

If the figures and the modelling are correct—although there are questions about the tobacco modelling on doing away with smoking in a generation—and if we impose the age limit of 21, which avoids some of the problems we have talked about with the sale of tobacco, we reach zero consumption by 2050, just as we do with the generational model. That avoids many of the problems and difficulties I have outlined and the consequences for retailers, rather than rushing into this. It is a headline-grabbing measure, but it has not worked elsewhere. Why did New Zealand drop it? Because of the booming market in illegal tobacco. I believe that in a number of years, we will find that we made the same mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I tell you, there are two things about this legislation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “I tell you”? Sir John Hayes, you should know better than that.

[Sir John Hayes]

I said “two”. I said that there were two things about this legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think it was “you”, but no matter—time is short.

[Sir John Hayes]

Well, let me rephrase it. I tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are two things about this legislation—I have got it right now—and the first is its core objective and the second is the means by which that objective is met. I am, at the moment, talking about the means by which it is met, and I will say a little more about that when I address some of the amendments in my name and those of other Members. When we pass measures in this House—when we make laws—we should concentrate on both their purpose and their effect. If we do not do that, we are not doing our job as lawmakers. My concern about the Bill is that the effect will be compromised by the means, regardless of its purpose.

I entirely endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about plastic filters. I think that her new clause 2 would be a helpful addition to the Bill, and I should be amazed if the Minister did not embrace and adopt it. Perhaps it could be tabled as a Government amendment, but we may vote on it later. I am sure that the Government Whips will want to whip their Members to support it, because it is environmentally right, terribly sensible and entirely deliverable. It would oblige the industry to do the right thing and create filters that are biodegradable and which, as we heard earlier, are produced in immense numbers.

I have mentioned amendment 4, in the name of the right hon. Member for East Antrim, which deals with this nonsense of the rolling age of consent. It is a straightforward amendment that proposes that the age of consent should be 21—a considerable increase on where we are now—and that retailers must observe that. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) said that the matter was already being dealt with because there was already an age of consent. Yes, there is one age of consent, but not a series of ages of consent, with the need to assess people’s age presumably by some formal means. Perhaps they will have to take their passports with them every time they go to the newsagent to buy their papers and their ounce of Golden Virginia, or whatever else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I apologise to all Members, but we will now have a speaking limit of five minutes.

[Tristan Osborne]

I appreciate that you want to guillotine speeches to five minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and, as a member of the Public Bill Committee, to see it come before the House. I welcome the contributions of Members across the House, and the quality of the scrutiny we saw in the Public Bill Committee. I also want to reflect on the years of campaigning and service undertaken by Ministers and shadow Ministers that have brought us to this place, and on the advocacy in broadcasts and on the news of people who were smokers but who say that they never should have started. I also welcome the views of young people in my constituency who, when speaking to me at schools and colleges, have told me how vapes are becoming more pernicious and more commonplace in their lives.

I will speak to Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification and the rising escalator, and I will challenge some of the points made about enforcement. I will also talk to new clause 13 on education and a road map to a smokefree generation, and to new clause 19, which sets annualised reporting on nicotine-based products. I will also challenge some of the Opposition’s misconceptions about trading standards and the regulatory landscape.

The Bill is forward thinking and responds to an issue, but it builds on previous legislation over many years and best practice in other places and other countries to regulate and reduce smoking. We know that noble crusaders on public health have in the past taken action to clean our air, clean our water, and introduce seatbelt restrictions and food standards. We know that public health measures work. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of illness and premature death in the United Kingdom, killing about 80,000 people a year. It is estimated to cost £2.4 billion to the NHS and a further £1.2 billion in costs every year, with smokers five times more likely to need social care support at home. The annual economic productivity loss adds up to £27 billion. Not only is there an ethical and social motivation behind the Bill; there is an economic one as well.

Age verification was a topic of debate in Committee. I welcome Government new clause 11 and new clause 6 on age verification. Government new clause 11 introduces digital identification, and links in with Government legislation to introduce digital ID over the next five years. This is absolutely enforceable. In many off-licences and supermarkets today, age challenge happens at bespoke counters. Individuals under the age of 18 who try to purchase vapes or tobacco-based products are challenged on their age. All the Bill will do is introduce a fixed date, which can then be assessed using any form of digital ID. It is no more onerous than what is currently happening, but it will require training and a transition period. I challenge the comments made by some opposing the measure that it is somehow unenforceable. We already enforce age restrictions on the sales of products—it already happens.

Male Suicide in Rotherham

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I believe the hon. Lady has permission from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) to make a brief contribution.

Rare Cancers Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this Bill. If, as we always say, politics is the language of priorities, then my hon. Friend has got his absolutely correct. I thank all Members who have shared their experiences and their stories, some incredibly moving. They should be what inspires us to take forward all the action we are proposing today.

I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and I have something in common, which we probably would not want to have in common, in that we were both diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. I have to say, my breast cancer was a strange breast cancer, and it always feels slightly strange talking about it, because no one’s ever heard of it. It is not a rare cancer as such, because it is a breast cancer, although there are some who argue it is actually a soft tissue sarcoma—whatever, it was treated as a breast cancer. It is called a phyllodes tumour.

Unlike other breast tumours, phyllodes tumours do not go into the ducts, but into the connective tissue. It presents differently from other cancers of the breast, and the treatment is also different, in that the only treatment that works is excision. Excision can be anything from a lumpectomy to a mastectomy. The hope is that there are clear margins, which mean the patient will be okay, but—and it is a big “but”—when a malignant phyllodes tumour is present, it can spread, and it can be difficult or impossible to treat. That is when it becomes a very different outcome.

I mention it today not because it is a rare cancer, but because it can be difficult to diagnose. It does not show up in a mammogram, for example, and there is no definitive explanation why such tumours occur. Some research is going on just now, but it is not conclusive as yet. A lot more work needs to happen, and because incidence is so low, it is difficult to research. The things we know about it for certain seem random to me. They tend to occur more often in the left breast. Why? I have no idea. They usually occur when a patient is in their 40s. As I have said, they do not seem to respond to chemo or radiotherapy, and they are not thought to be genetic or hormonal.

The reason I mention my case is that it can be a lonely thing to have an unusual cancer. When trying to explain it to family and friends, you say, “No, it did not show up in a mammogram. No, I am not getting chemotherapy or radiotherapy. No, I do not know why it happened. No, I had not heard of it either.” You begin to doubt yourself a little, and you begin to question what is actually going on. For someone with a very rare cancer, it must be incredibly difficult when there is not a background of research, not anything that they can read, and no one can give them a pamphlet about it and tell them what is happening.

It seems to me that we should know more about cancer full stop. We have got to 2025, and we know some things about cancer. We know how to treat some cancers, but there are so many others that we do not have the answer for. We need people to be diagnosed more quickly, which means that we have to have the research. We need people to have the best possible treatment, which means we have to look at the drugs and find out what works and what does not work, and where a drug can be transferred from one thing to another successfully. Crucially, we have to know why it is that some people get cancer and others do not.

This Bill will make a huge difference to the lives of some of the people we have heard about today. For some, as we know, it will not be soon enough. It is the responsibility of every single one of us to make change happen, and we have an opportunity today to take that step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her sister, Margaret, who I worked with for a time in the Labour party. While I was listening to the other speeches, I was reflecting on what my hon. Friend said. I think we all need to be angry. We need to say—to shout it from the rooftops—that change begins today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was very powerful. I call Leigh Ingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I will be brief, because I understand that we are at the end of the debate, but I rise to support the Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing it forward, and for the dignified, collegiate manner in which he has gone about things. Up to 95 people in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will be facing a less survivable cancer. That is 95 people who will wait longer for a diagnosis, will face a postcode lottery to access specialist treatment, and will be left asking why there are so few treatment options available.

The truth is that rare cancers do not receive the research attention or funding that they need. The Bill would take decisive action to change that. It would introduce measures to break down systemic barriers preventing research and innovation in rare cancers. These are not abstract policy changes but lifesaving reforms that would give patients with rare cancers greater access to clinical trials. Researchers would have better tools to study the diseases, and pharmaceutical companies would be given stronger incentives to invest in treatments that could transform lives.

Behind every rare cancer diagnosis is a person fighting for their future, a family searching for answers and healthcare professionals looking for better treatment options. We cannot allow those individuals to be left behind simply because their condition is considered rare. We have the opportunity to change that. By supporting the Bill, we send a clear message that no cancer is too rare to matter, and that no patient should be forgotten. I am proud to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend for bringing it forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank a few people. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for her speech. I met her yesterday, and she was filled with genuine passion, energy and excitement for this subject. It is great to see her come here today and use her power to support this Bill, and let us hope that it passes.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar). Before this debate, people told me that he was respected across the House, and he has shown why. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). People in the Gallery will not know this, but he has worked really effectively, right throughout the debate, to ensure that all the people who wanted to speak could do so. I thank him for that.

I thank the Whips and the Speaker’s Office for managing the debate sensitively, because this is quite a difficult subject, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was you who pulled my ping-pong ball from the goldfish bowl. It was very skilfully done.

I wish I had time to thank everybody who spoke in the debate. Sadly, I do not, but they have my thanks and respect. They have done a great job of thanking each other as the debate has proceeded, so I thank them all. I will watch the debate again over the weekend, because it has been quite incredible and quite moving.

I thank our colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care, who are in the officials’ box. They have been fantastic. Without them, this Bill would not have happened. Privately, there have been a few Sir Humphrey moments, but those from the Department have been absolutely fantastic, and that was very clear yesterday when I met the Minister.

I thank the charities that backed the Bill. They did not just back it; they helped get it to where it is. They were not just backing a finished product; they influenced and shaped it. I think that is why so many people are here to support it.

I thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their patience and so much more, and I thank the staff in my office. I think Noel and Solomon are here today, but it is a team effort. Back in Edinburgh are Lucie, Salim, Xavier, Evie and Hannah. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They deserve that.

In all the contributions today, we have heard evidence that people with a rare cancer diagnosis face great injustice, because their chances are so much slimmer and they face so much uncertainty. We have shown that we want change. We are not just being angry; we are using that anger to get even, which is really important. We talk in this Chamber, but often there is no action. Today we have talked and agreed, and hopefully there is going to be action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was most definitely Parliament at its best.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

National Cancer Plan

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that some of these contributions are quite emotional, and if people need to leave the Chamber after they have spoken, that is okay by me.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Ethan was just 15 and studying for his GCSEs when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Sadly, he passed away two years later. I had the privilege of meeting his mum, Nikki, this weekend at two events organised to raise money for brain tumour research. In Ethan’s memory, will the Minister commit himself to improving outcomes for people with brain tumours through the national cancer plan?

Women’s Health Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this incredibly important issue of the women’s health strategy, and the fact that the word “woman” has been excluded from the updated planning guidance, could you help me understand this? As a common courtesy to both you and the House, when a Minister is unable to organise herself such that she can get to the Chamber on time, is it not courteous to apologise to those of us she has kept waiting before we were able to discuss this important subject?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. She is, of course, correct that it is courteous to the House for an apology to be made. Five minutes of time was wasted this morning. I think the Minister would like to make a further point of order.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I absolutely, unequivocally apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.

The Government are of the view that the Bill is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government to decide. In order for the Public Bill Committee that is now scrutinising the Bill to consider the clause that would have spending implications, the Government must first table this money resolution. This is purely to allow the Bill to be debated in Committee, and the Government have taken the view that tabling this motion does not act against our commitment to remain neutral. Only the Government can table such motions, so tabling it allows further debate to happen. To assist that debate, the Government will also assess the impacts of the Bill, and we expect to publish the impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members should keep their contributions within scope. This is about the financial implications of the Bill if it is passed, so let us keep contributions within scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To ensure that as many colleagues as possible can get in during the time allowed, there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Let me start by saying that I am in in favour of the motion, so I will vote for it, if it comes to that. However, would the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister consider the inclusion of two social workers on the group, made up of two GPs and a High Court judge, that assesses requests for assisted dying?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Your contribution has to be within the scope of what we are discussing, which is the financial organisation of the Bill.

[Brian Mathew]

I was making a point about the added expense.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You need to get to that point very quickly.

[Brian Mathew]

There would be added expense. Social workers are trained in understanding family dynamics, and need desperately to be involved in these situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Let us imagine what the public would make of our role in this place if this legislation were to fall at this point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We are going to drop the speech limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

I would be happy to do so in a moment.

It is quite clear that the measures will impose huge costs on the health and justice budgets. Given the provisions in the Bill, is it impossible for that not to be the consequence, so when the Treasury Minister produces the financial information, will he include current Government expenditure on palliative care and suicide prevention, so that we can look at and balance what we are spending? The Bill invites the Government to move from funding charities to prevent suicide to becoming facilitators and providers of suicide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Allister, we must confine our remarks to the money resolution for the Bill.

[Jim Allister]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I was seeking to do that by asking the Treasury Minister to give us a comparison. What is this Bill going to cost our health service and justice system? How does that compare with what we are already spending on palliative care and suicide prevention? Those are pertinent questions and we need the answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

I agree. We all have our views on the merits of the Bill, but fundamentally we have a duty to our constituents to handle public money properly. In handling that money, we must know how much the Bill will cost. When it comes to that financial statement, it must not be fudged or opaque; it must be absolutely clear and it must—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I must now call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made a comment that I feel impinged upon my integrity. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman and he knows what I am referring to. I underlined and highlighted that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee went into private session; some 15 Members, who support the Bill, voted for the private session and nine Members, who oppose the Bill, voted against the private session. The record must be corrected about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the comments I made about that. Facts are facts; they matter to me, as does my integrity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Thank you, Mr Shannon, for letting me know you would be making a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Member’s speeches, but I remind the House of the advice in Erskine May on the importance of good temper and moderation in parliamentary language.

[Kit Malthouse]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no intent in my remarks to undermine the integrity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I may have misunderstood his remarks, but he implied that the Committee was adopting some kind of veil of secrecy over our affairs and I was pointing out to him that, in my view, that was a misunderstanding of what we were attempting to do yesterday. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was offended, as he knows I hold him in great affection and I had no intention to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Malthouse. I can see Mr Shannon nodding, so hopefully your apology has been accepted.

Obesity: Food and Diet

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As Members can see from the annunciator, the debate on financial education has been postponed, so the current debate can go on until 10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. When the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) takes an intervention, he must be seated.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thought-provoking observation, but does he acknowledge that in times past, the proportion of income that any individual, from whichever class, spent on food was considerably higher than it is today? If we are to get to the heart of the matter, we have to address the wider challenge of our society’s expectations of how much money we should spend on food. Does he not agree that we are addicted to cheap food?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To ensure that everybody gets in, I am setting a time limit of eight minutes.