Moles: Histological Testing

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

Many of those present may not yet be familiar with the name Zoe Panayi. If they are, it is likely to be because of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who spoke about Zoe at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago. For Zoe’s family, the five years since her tragic death have meant that their daughter, sister, mother and friend has come to represent something far greater—a legacy that continues to grow and touch lives beyond their own. I welcome Charlie, Zoe’s brother, to Westminster Hall today.

Zoe was like so many other 26-year-olds. She was a devoted mother to her two boys, a loyal friend to many across the island and a young woman full of promise. Despite her age, Zoe made a remarkable impact on our community. She volunteered as a carer, and later trained to become a radiologist at St Mary’s hospital. That is what makes Zoe’s story so heartbreaking. While she was dedicating herself to caring for others, her own health concerns were repeatedly dismissed.

On the morning of Zoe’s eventual diagnosis, she woke up in pain, but brushed off her concerns, telling her mum that she had been teaching her boys how to do roly-polies—which many Members will know is, as an adult, no mean feat—and must have hurt herself that way. But that evening Zoe was in such excruciating pain that she was taken to hospital where, upon being tested by her boss at St Mary’s, she was told that her liver was full of cancer.

Doctors asked Zoe whether any moles on her body had been causing her concern. She then realised that the small mole on her back was the root of her cancer. Zoe died just 55 days after that diagnosis, and in those 55 days she had to try to explain to a five-year-old and a seven-year-old that mummy would soon not be coming home, and would instead become an angel. I do not bring that up purely to cause upset, but to emphasise Zoe’s outstanding bravery at such a young age in ensuring her boys were prepared for the unthinkable.

Zoe had not ignored her symptoms; she did everything right. She visited her GP on three separate occasions asking that her mole be tested, yet she was told that her pain was caused by the mole rubbing against her jeans, and that she was too young for it to be clinically concerning. On her third visit, Zoe was told that if it bothered her that much, she should get her mole removed cosmetically. Zoe even paid for her mole to be tested after removal at the beauticians, yet it never was.

There is no doubt that Zoe was failed by her GP, who sent her a letter of apology after learning of her diagnosis, and that Zoe was failed deeply by her beautician, who failed to recognise her cancer or even to send her mole for testing. Zoe’s concerns should never have been dismissed, she should never have been referred out of the NHS, and the mole, which was actually a melanoma, should never have been removed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has enacted Jess’s rule, meaning that on the third time of asking, Zoe’s concerns may have brought about a different outcome.

We are not here today because Zoe’s family want to cast blame; we are here because Zoe’s family want to make sure that what happened to their daughter, their sister and their mother will never have to happen to anyone else again. The safeguard we are asking for is simple: that all healthcare providers must test the lesions they remove. This extra check—a “Zoe check”—would prevent tragedies like Zoe’s from occurring.

Over the past months I have spoken with a range of doctors across the NHS and in the private sector, and reassuringly—although it is not mandated—what we are asking for is already standard practice in the NHS for GPs and dermatologists. To avoid that one in a 1,000 case, removed skintags, moles or blemishes, however harmless they look, are almost always sent for testing. NHS doctors order these tests as a matter of routine, and many good private dermatologists insist on including a biopsy before agreeing to treatment in the first place. The tests are relatively cheap, with lab fees around £100. To put that into perspective, the cost of Zoe’s cancer treatment could have funded over 650 biopsies.

Using state-of-the-art technology, we could go further. Trials are under way for handheld equipment that can test for melanoma by using artificial intelligence systems to analyse high-definition photographs of skin lesions. If those trials prove successful, the cost of Zoe’s treatment could have funded thousands of pre-treatment checks. The checks are cheap, immediate and, with proper training, could easily be deployed in beauty clinics and other non-medical environments. If we combine them with specific melanoma training for all professionals who encounter skin lesions, and encourage GPs and others to take up that training, that approach could significantly improve early detection and reduce the need for costly and often unsuccessful late-stage cancer interventions.

Cancer is not a place to cut corners. Although they are not mandatory, histology tests are already routine practice for benign moles and other lesions in both NHS and private dermatology alike. Zoe’s law would ensure that a similar safeguard is applied across the board, from NHS hospitals to private dermatologists and beauty clinics. That would demand more from the clinics that are currently the least regulated. But we should demand more, because this is about protecting the NHS, which will ultimately pick up the bill when those clinics fail, and it is about protecting families like Zoe’s from the grief of a tragic and unnecessary death.

I thank the Minister for her engagement, and I am genuinely encouraged by the seriousness with which her Department has adopted the issue. Zoe’s family has said that they feel they have got further than ever before over the past weeks, and that they feel listened to. I thank the Minister very much for that, but this can only be the start, and whatever form Zoe’s law eventually takes, we must not stop until we get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. I do not think anyone would question her passion and commitment to this cause. I thank her for previously sharing her own diagnosis. It is important that people understand that cancer can affect anybody. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—and it would not be a debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) making some contribution.

Zoe Panayi did everything right. She sought help and she trusted the system, and yet the safeguards that should have protected her did not. That is why this debate matters. Zoe’s law is not about blame; it is about prevention. It is about making sure that every mole removed is tested. That is a small step with a profound impact—one that could save lives, reduce the burden on the NHS and spare families unimaginable grief. The cost is not preventable: the technology exists and the reason is clear —cancer is not a place to cut corners.

I know that all the contributions we have heard today mean such a lot to Zoe’s family, her brother Charlie, and mum Eileen watching at home. We must not forget the human tragedy behind this story: the children who have lost a mother, the family who have lost a sister and a daughter, and the community who have lost a friend. That is why Zoe’s law is so important. I urge the Department to continue working with Zoe’s family, with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who has shared so much of his own journey, making such a difference. I thank him for his commitment to this cause, and for the support and extremely generous amount of time that he has given me. We need to make this safeguard a reality so that what happened to Zoe is never repeated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles.