Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Debate between Patrick Hurley and Mark Francois

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my near-neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate. I wish him well. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on achieving the childhood ambition of having his very own bat-phone. I am, as they say, well jel.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not least as he is being so kind to me, but for the record it is my wife’s bat-phone, not mine.

[Patrick Hurley]

It will have been very important to place that on the record once the right hon. Gentleman gets home this evening, I imagine.

The Government’s aim to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade is welcome, ambitious and absolutely necessary. Cardiovascular disease remains one of the biggest public health challenges that this country faces. Across the country more than 8 million people live with cardiovascular disease. As has been mentioned, despite decades of progress, we now see a worrying reversal.

Premature deaths are rising again for the first time in over half a century. One thing I have personally been doing to reduce my chances of being a victim of cardiovascular disease is walking more. During the recent Makerfield by-election, I was very lucky—not just to be part of the wonderful campaign to return a new Member to this House but to undertake almost half-a-million steps around the streets of Wigan over the course of 17 punishing days. I am celebrating not only a new Member for Makerfield but having lost four pounds.

For those of us who represent communities in the north-west, the challenges around cardiovascular disease are particularly acute. Health inequalities remain stark. People living in some of our most deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and more than twice as likely to die prematurely from it. Behind every one of those statistics is a family changed forever. There is good news, though: many of those deaths are preventable. Up to 80% of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease can be prevented and 70% of cases are linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet and inactivity. That is why prevention should be at the heart of the Government’s approach.

We need to continue to drive down smoking rates, to make healthy food more accessible and to design our communities and the places where people live around cycling, walking and physical activity. We need to recognise—it is a cliché but only because it is true—that prevention is better and simply cheaper than cure. It keeps people healthier and more independent for longer, and allows people to fully participate in social life.

Early diagnosis is equally important. Millions of people are currently living undiagnosed with high blood pressure. We know that identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol and the like earlier can prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes. I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood health services. Taking screening and checks into communities, making better use of pharmacies, using data more intelligently and increasingly using AI technologies are all real opportunities to narrow the health inequalities that can scar our communities.

We need to stop treating conditions in isolation. So many people with cardiovascular disease are also living with other long-term health conditions. Patients do not just experience heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease or obesity separately; they experience them together. Our health system must increasingly treat the person rather than the condition.

Finally, while prevention is crucial, we cannot ignore access to treatment. There are long waits for cardiac care, and there are increasing and continuing pressures on ambulance response times, meaning that too many people are still waiting too long for an emergency response. The forthcoming modern service framework for cardiovascular disease represents a significant opportunity—it must be ambitious. It should be focused on prevention and early intervention, tackle inequalities head on and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high-quality care.

If we get this right, we will not only save lives but reduce pressure on the NHS, strengthen our economy and create a fairer, healthier country. Even without a bat-phone of my own, I look forward to supporting the Government in delivering their ambition.

Call for General Election

Debate between Patrick Hurley and Mark Francois

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

The petition presents itself as the voice of democratic urgency. In truth, it is something with which we are far more familiar, and something far less noble: it is nothing more than the collective stamping of feet, accompanied by the online equivalent of the call and response, “What do we want? And when do we want it?” We have all encountered this impulse before—or at least those of us who are parents have. It is an impulse pandered to by the Tory MPs who are present: the impulse of the toddler. But a democracy cannot be run like a nursery. This great country of ours, which they repeatedly let down over 14 years of decline, cannot be governed like one either. However loudly certain voices and views might be expressed, or however much they are featured on GB News or shared on Facebook late at night after half a bottle of wine, the truth is that we do not get something simply because we want it.

[Mr Francois]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying—his attitude is unbelievably patronising—that the more than 1 million people across the UK who signed the petition are basically all children who do not know what they are doing? That is his implication, which is deeply insulting to 1 million-plus people, including our constituents.

[Patrick Hurley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Back in 1983, when he was the Leader of the Opposition —[Interruption.] Members may remember Michael Foot—the right hon. Gentleman will never be the Leader of the Opposition. Michael Foot thought he was storming to victory back in 1983. “Look at this,” he said to John Golding. “I’ve got a rally here. There’s a thousand people cheering me on.” “But Michael,” John replied, “there were 122,000 outside saying you’re crackers.” A million people have signed the petition, but how many people voted in the general election? Well over a million people.

This Parliament was elected in a general election held under rules that were well known in advance, and those rules include a parliamentary term. Some Members might not like it, but it is true. The rules do not include a rolling plebiscite triggered whenever a sufficiently large group of people becomes bored, frustrated or impatient—or someone has shared a video clip with them on WhatsApp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley]

I acknowledge that a million people want the Government to change course.

The petitioners who have put their names to the petition say that the people want change, but they are not the majority of people in this country. There are tens and tens of millions of people in this country and only 1 million people signed the petition. Here’s the news: the people actually got change in 2024. Eighteen months ago, we got a Government who explicitly said they would not just go and put sticking plasters on the gaping wounds of the previous 14 years. We got a Government who explicitly said it would take a decade of national renewal. That is what we went to the people with 18 months ago, and that is what they were happy to vote for. We said it would take a decade to fix the country’s problems and the mess the Conservatives left us in.

The people who want change now are the very same people who want to go back to the years of stagnation and decline under the Conservatives—the years of austerity under Eric Pickles, George Osborne and Michael Gove, and, of course, the self-harming referendum that has done this country no favours whatsoever.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman may recall that 17.3 million people voted in that referendum, peacefully and democratically, to leave the European Union. That is a lot more people than voted for Labour at the general election. If he is not prepared to respect the opinion of the million people who signed the petition, and as he is all about numbers today, will he respect the will of the 17.3 million people who voted to leave the EU? Or is that not a big enough number for him either?

[Patrick Hurley]

Those people voted in good faith and they were lied to by people like him—

[Mr Francois]

I beg your pardon? Withdraw!

[Patrick Hurley]

They were lied to inadvertently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley]

It looks like Reform MPs turn out only when there is something in it for them.

We should be honest about what the petition represents. It is not a considered proposal for the better governance of this country. We can tell that by the way Opposition Members are giggling behind their hands on the other side of the room. The petition is not accompanied by a constitutional argument for changing this place to make it better, nor by any sort of legislative necessity. It is simply an expression of dissatisfaction at how long it has taken the new Government to fix the problems that were left behind after 14 years of chaos, division and decline caused by the Conservative party. There were years of economic stagnation, a referendum of such consequential proportions that the economy has barely grown since 2016, and a Tory Government who were more concerned with looking after themselves than with looking after the most vulnerable in this country.

[Mr Francois]

At least we buy our own glasses.

[Patrick Hurley]

It doesn’t look like it.

If adults behaved in their working lives the way the petition urges Parliament to behave—abandoning responsibility at the first sight of trouble, and demanding resets whenever outcomes failed to please them—we would call it irresponsible and childish. We would not reward it. Democracy requires more than just knee-jerk, reflexive wanting. To indulge every demand for an immediate election is not to respect the voters, but to infantilise them. The House should do better than that.