(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The petition calls on the Government to increase funding for people with Parkinson’s and to implement the five steps of the Parky charter. With more than 113,000 signatures, the petition is not just a call for change; it is the collective voice of a community that has waited too long for meaningful action.
Parkinson’s is one of the fastest growing neurological conditions in the world. It affects more than 116,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 173,000 by 2030. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, friends and family members. Behind each number is a story of resilience, daily struggle and hope.
The Parky charter is a powerful five-point plan created by the “Movers and Shakers” podcast group. It is backed by Parkinson’s UK, and aims to improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s. It calls for faster access to specialists; clear and immediate information; a Parkinson’s passport to ensure joined-up support; comprehensive support across health and social services; and renewed investment in research for a cure.
Paul Davies
There is a competition. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore).
Baggy Shanker
Initiatives such as Derby County Community Trust’s Parkinson’s walking football programme are doing fantastic work to boost physical health and build a community for people with Parkinson’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by coupling investment in the Parkinson’s support workforce with such community initiatives, we can help every person with Parkinson’s to live with the dignity and support they deserve?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. The strength of the community around investment and specialist support is of key importance.
Chris Bloore
As the son of someone suffering from Parkinson’s—both my uncles have Parkinson’s and my grandad sadly died of Parkinson’s complications—I was struck by the fluctuating nature of the condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best parts of the Parkinson’s passport is that people will not have to go through reassessment, when we know that this degenerative condition will only get worse for many people?
Paul Davies
I will refer to that later, but I absolutely agree. The fluctuating nature of the illness means that we have to provide that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
Oh, go on, before I start again—I will only lose my place otherwise.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous, and I thank him for his excellent introduction. Given that the condition is often degenerative and that, tragically, people do not get better from it, it is not outrageous that a number of integrated care boards—including mine, Lancashire and South Cumbria—are reassessing people with Parkinson’s for continuing healthcare, and that many of them are losing that care? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is wrong, and that people with such conditions should be able to guarantee that they will get the support and healthcare they have had for many years?
Paul Davies
I agree. I will refer later to ICBs, which clearly have to ensure the full, necessary support, particularly for this community. I understand the pressures they are under—we all do—but taking away support from people is a much bigger issue than people not getting support in the first place. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to work on that issue.
This plan is rooted in lived experience and offers a practical road map for change, including renewed investment—I say that to give some context; otherwise we will lose track of where we are. In April, during World Parkinson’s Day, I attended the Big Sing for Parkinson’s. That uplifting event was quite amazing and inspiring; it was full of energy, music and community spirit. It was organised by the same “Movers and Shakers” group I referred to earlier, and brought together people living with Parkinson’s, and very importantly their families, in both London and Huddersfield.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Mark Mardell, the former BBC political journalist and the lead petitioner—he is sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, and I thank him very much for the petition and for the work he is doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He shared his personal journey with me and emphasised the urgent need for reform. Like the charter, the Big Sing is a celebration of resilience and a call for action.
Since July 2024, the Government have taken the following steps. The autumn Budget last year included a £600 million increase in social care funding and an £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant. In April 2025, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to improving outcomes for neurological conditions, through initiatives such as the RightCare toolkit, the Getting It Right First Time programme and the neurology transformation programme. Spending review 2025 also pledged £29 billion in additional NHS funding by 2029, including £10 billion for technology and GP training. This is just the start in addressing the needs of those living with Parkinson’s.
An estimated 253 people with Parkinson’s live in my constituency of Colne Valley. That is as per the previous constituency boundaries, but there will be revised figures in line with the new constituency boundaries, although they are hopefully not revised upwards. West Yorkshire NHS ICB plans and delivers care for people with Parkinson’s in the ICB area. In 2023-24, the spend on admissions to hospital in that area increased by 4.9%, and the cost of each admission was just over £6,000.
However, we face extremely serious challenges. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. Neurology services meet the 18-week referral target only about half the time. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, only 62% have access to a physiotherapist and just 40% have access to a speech and language therapist. Those professionals are essential; they are not optional. The Government are addressing that issue through the broader NHS workforce strategy, which includes expanding the number of training places and reforming medical education pathways to address shortages in specialist areas such as neurology.
However, the Parky charter also highlights the importance of timely medication. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time is not a convenience; it is an absolute necessity. Yet more than half of hospitalised patients report delays. The NHS’s medicines safety improvement programme, which runs from 2024 to 2027, is a step forward, but implementation must be consistent across all trusts.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Lewell. Earlier today, I was at the Parkinson’s event in the Palace, and I spoke to a surgeon who treats Parkinson’s patients every week. He told me that if more people were seen earlier, he could ensure better outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that this battle is partly about funding that is needed now, rather than later down the line?
Paul Davies
Once again, I absolutely agree. I will certainly refer later to funding, which is a key issue. This is about resources and about making sure that that help is there as quickly as possible. Obviously, the longer it takes to provide that support, the more this disease hits people—the impact is far greater.
The Parky charter also addresses the personal independence payment system. As we know and as was said earlier, Parkinson’s is a fluctuating condition, and assessments often fail to capture its complexity. The Government are now working with Parkinson’s UK and individuals with lived experience to reform the PIP assessment, aiming to make it much more reflective of fluctuating conditions. The review is expected to report in autumn 2026, and the Minister has pledged that the voices of the Parkinson’s community will be central to the process. The Government have expressed a desire to return to routine face-to-face assessments, but have also indicated that for those with very severe conditions, full assessments may be waived if sufficient medical evidence is provided.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In terms of treating those suffering from Parkinson’s, does the hon. Member agree that best practice should be shared across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that everybody gets the best treatment right across our United Kingdom?
Paul Davies
I could not agree more. I will speak later about the postcode lottery, although it is not just a postcode lottery; it is across the whole nation. The hon. Member is absolutely right: we should be doing everything we can to ensure consistency of support and adequate support across the nation.
Innovation also offers hope. Produodopa—I think I probably said that better today than the last time I was here—was approved for NHS use in 2024. Earlier today, I was at an event organised by Parkinson’s UK and I was talking to a specialist—a neurologist—who was talking about the impact of medication and how much difference that will make. It was fascinating, and that five minutes was of huge value in helping me to understand the impact.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On the question of innovation, the University of Wolverhampton, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, recently launched a new course, in collaboration with the British Judo Association, to enable those suffering with Parkinson’s to remain active and to increase their confidence with physical activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to Parkinson’s care, that this kind of support is crucial to supplement the specialist medical care he has spoken about, and that that is the best way to support those who are suffering from this awful disease?
Paul Davies
Again, I absolutely agree. I know from talking to one of my constituents, Liz Ryan, that that physical support and that ability to do something, get involved in activities and have help are of immense value. We absolutely have to have a holistic view of this issue; it is not a simple case of just medication or taking people into a clinical environment. We have to look at what we can do within communities, as was mentioned earlier, and at how we can support people with their lives and ensure that they live their lives to their full potential.
Some of the innovative medicines can certainly be life-changing for those with severe symptoms, but staffing and funding constraints mean that many hospitals cannot offer those solutions. Access to new treatments must not be a postcode lottery.
I want to take a moment to share some encouraging news from my constituency. We currently have a neurology registrar based in Leeds who is spending a significant amount of time seeing Parkinson’s patients in Huddersfield. He works alongside a dedicated doctor who also travels from Leeds to support patients at Huddersfield Royal infirmary. Just last month, they met the operations director at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, who shared some good news: in December, the trust will be advertising for a consultant neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson’s.
The role will be based in Leeds but will include a significant commitment to patients in Huddersfield. That is a direct result of our local campaign, and in particular the tireless work of our local Parkinson’s community group, led by Liz Ryan MBE and Dr Chris Ryan. It shows what can be achieved when patients, families, clinicians and elected representatives work together.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading today’s debate, and the Movers and Shakers for promoting both the debate and the Parky charter. My hon. Friend talks about working together. One of the issues I have heard from constituents in Stevenage is misdiagnosis at the outset, where GPs have not identified the condition or referred patients to the right pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about funding, but about training as well?
Paul Davies
Certainly. In the discussion I referred to earlier with the neurologist specialist, we talked quite a bit about that as well: the difficulty with diagnosis and the similarities between Parkinson’s and other neurological illnesses and issues. My hon. Friend is right: there is absolutely a need to ensure that GPs at least recognise some triggers or areas so that patients can get specialist support. Without early diagnosis, many people suffer unnecessarily for many years, and the support that could help to alleviate some of these issues is not getting to them.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On early diagnosis, this is not just about GPs’ ability to diagnose, but about patients getting neurology appointments. Does the hon. Member agree that more people would be able to get the clinical care and support they need if they were able to get such an appointment within the first 18 weeks?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. One of our calls in the Parky charter is for that additional support. It is crucial that those specialists are available. We recognise that there is a shortage across the country, but we have to work hard to fill that gap as soon as possible. I totally agree with the hon. Member. Going back to the work being done in my constituency, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has supported that effort.
Parkinson’s demands our attention, compassion and action. The Government have made some progress, but clearly the petitioners would like to see more done. I urge the Minister to work with the Parkinson’s community, particularly the petitioners, to implement the Parky charter, especially in the following areas: invest in the Parkinson’s workforce; ensure timely access to medication and specialists; and expand access to innovative treatments. I welcome the commitment shown by the Minister, who has recognised the urgency of improving care and support for people with Parkinson’s. Now is the time to turn that commitment into concrete change through funding, reform and compassion.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will need to put a two-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s.
I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard.
The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent.
Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, it is my privilege to take part in this debate. In May this year I was delighted to secure the first substantive debate on Parkinson’s held in the Chamber. It is fantastic to see that as a result of that tenacious campaign we have not had to wait long for this next opportunity. I want to start by noting the incredible feat of securing over 100,000 signatures on the petition raised by Mark Mardell on behalf of the Movers and Shakers.
In Scotland there are around 14,000 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and every single day another seven people are told they have this disease—one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions in the world. In my constituency there are 235 people living with Parkinson’s, each of whom are supported by carers, both paid and unpaid, family members and clinicians who work tirelessly to ensure they can live their very best quality life. But when we look at the health economics of Parkinson’s, people living with the condition are seven times more likely to be among the very highest users of health services, falling into a category defined as high-cost, high-need patients, along with approximately 5% of the general population. Meeting the needs of that accounts for more health spending than the remaining population put together.
We would expect that this group of people are able to access consistent gold standard care and support, yet they face some of the starkest postcode lotteries anywhere in the UK. In the NHS Forth Valley local authority in my constituency, people referred for neurological support are typically seen quickly, but in NHS Fife the median wait for the first neurology appointment is 31 weeks, stretching to 87 weeks for some. You can imagine not knowing that something is wrong and having to wait for almost two years before a specialist can help you to understand what is happening to you. Can you imagine the impact on your loved ones? We must always remember the emotional and social cost to people.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while tackling Parkinson’s and highlighting the issue today is critical, we also have to make sure that we look at Parkinson’s with dementia and all the other challenges that come with such a complex set of health issues.
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the complexity of Parkinson’s itself and the other conditions it presents with is another reason why this is something we must tackle immediately. I want to make sure I am not using up other people’s time by repeating some of the information in the Parky charter. However, I think there is a need for speedy care and instant information, and I echo the point raised earlier about the Parkinson’s passport and making sure that that involves the devolved Administrations, so that touchpoints are truly connected and best practice is delivered wherever possible.
The financial cost of living with Parkinson’s is immense. On average it costs a household £21,986 per year, and people with Parkinson’s are 9% more likely to be incorrectly assessed for PIP or adult disability payment in Scotland, something I hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will show people how to do a 30-minute speech in two minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting the scene, and thank him for that. I am the DUP’s health spokesman, so I know many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s and I know about the devastating effects it can have on aspects of their lives. I give a big thanks to Parkinson’s UK. Many of them are in the Gallery today, and I thank them for all the help that they have sent to us.
I want to present some stats on three questions in the short time I have. In my constituency of Strangford there are 272 people living with Parkinson’s and a further 694 people in the South Eastern trust area. We expect that this year 98 more people will have Parkinson’s. Shockingly, around one in five people do not have proper access to a Parkinson’s specialist nurse—1,328 people in Northern Ireland. It is lovely to see the Minister in her place; I thank her for being here. My first request to her is to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) said, the four regions—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—work together. We can do it better together and we should always try to do so.
They say that, with adaptations, travel costs and additional energy payments, it costs almost £22,000 a year to have Parkinson’s. That is a salary. I want to highlight the issue of Parkinson’s and personal independence payments, which I deal with all the time in my office. I say this with respect: I am not quite sure whether the person who does the PIP checks has the knowledge to understand what Parkinson’s is and how PIP should be involved. That is my second ask to the Minister. There is no doubt that change is needed.
My third ask is research. We are aware of the motor and non-motor symptoms that come with Parkinson’s. We must have more research. Let us find a cure in our lifetime. They say that in 10 years’ time, they will find the cure for cancer—well, let us find a cure for Parkinson’s as well. That is my hope. Timely diagnosis, specialist care and community support remain inconsistent across the region, leaving many individuals and families navigating the condition without the full resources they need.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.
I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.
However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?
Mary Glindon
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.
Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.
Mary Glindon
Sorry—I do not know that I have time to give way. Too many people want to speak.
A framework would drive faster diagnosis and treatment, boost access to multidisciplinary teams and improve secondary prevention. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a framework for neurology in the Government’s first wave of national service frameworks in 2026. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to meet Parkinson’s UK and the Neurological Alliance to discuss how the framework could help to improve patient outcomes?
On financial support, Parkinson’s comes with a significant financial cost. People with Parkinson’s spend over £7,500 a year on average just to manage their condition. However, the personal independence payment system has failed the Parkinson’s community since its creation 12 years ago. Inaccurate assessments are far too common, and too often people must bear the physical and emotional strain of the appeals process. In the previous debate, the Minister offered to relay concerns about PIP to the ministerial team and the Department for Work and Pensions. Against the backdrop of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, and now that the Timms review has been launched, will the Minister make representations in the strongest possible terms that any reform of PIP must deliver fair and accurate awards for people with Parkinson’s?
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In the interest of time, I will concentrate on PIP. The evidence of the past 10 years tells us that the PIP system copes very poorly with fluctuating neurological conditions. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I constantly hear of people being denied PIP even when diagnosed with some of the most severe conditions.
Reports suggest that people with Parkinson’s are more likely to be inaccurately assessed than people with any other condition. I have seen that close up. One of my constituents in Horsham had Parkinson’s for 30 years, yet continued to be denied PIP. Nationally, over 430,000 people are stuck waiting for PIP reviews, causing delays of £24 million a month in essential support payments. We are seeing the opposite of overdiagnosis: almost 302,000 PIP decisions have been overturned on appeal in just two years. That is not an occasional error; it is evidence of a system failing on an industrial scale. I very much hope that the forthcoming Timms review will operate in a genuinely collaborative way, as promised, to put this service on a stronger footing.
When support is denied, people lose their mobility, their independence and their ability to keep working; they fall into crisis, end up in A&E, or even worse; and all of that comes at a far greater cost to the state than if we had supported them properly in the first place. Cutting support does not necessarily save money; it simply shifts the burden on to hospitals, social care, carers and families. People with Parkinson’s deserve dignity, independence and a system that understands their condition. Let’s give it to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak for Worthing West, where support for the Parky petition has been strong, particularly in our amazing local Parkinson’s group. Parkinson’s is one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions. Behind the statistics are many people coping with tremor, rigidity and “off” periods—and carers holding everything together. Too many constituents face long waits for diagnosis, inconsistent annual reviews and patchy access to specialist nurses and community rehab.
In West Sussex alone, more than 4,000 people are living with Parkinson’s. Most of them are over 65 years old, but there are also many younger people who have Parkinson’s and are trying to work and support their families. The Government have acknowledged the challenges, and we have already heard about the RightCare toolkit and the neurology transformation programme, but without targeted workforce and implementation funding, the guidance will not translate into timely care for patients, especially given the plan to restore the 18-week referral-to-treatment standard by 2029.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned the Parkinson’s group in her constituency. In my constituency, the wonderful Mervyn Dunkley, Jane Hua and their team run brilliant weekly Parkinson’s move and shout classes at the Fairfield leisure centre in Dartford for people living with Parkinson’s disease. Does she agree that every community deserve a Mervyn and Jane and a roll-out of such classes? They are of huge benefit to people suffering from Parkinson’s across the country, and more people could benefit.
Dr Cooper
It is incredibly timely that we are talking about this issue in the context of the NHS 10-year strategy, which will provide a shift from treatment to prevention. A lot can be done in the preventive space for those with Parkinson’s, as with so many other neurological disorders. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I can slow down slightly now.
The Parky charter asks for speedy specialists, instant information on day one, a cross-condition health conditions passport, comprehensive multidisciplinary care close to home, and a sustained quest for a cure. Alongside that, I ask the Minister to consider a near-term date to deliver 18-week neurology referrals for suspected Parkinson’s; to ensure annual specialist reviews for people with diagnosed Parkinson’s; to expand specialist nurse and multidisciplinary team posts in each area of the country—no more postcode lottery; to pilot the cross-condition health conditions passport, although I appreciate that there are links there to the upcoming NHS App work; to publish access standards and dashboards—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I call Gregory Stafford. My apologies; we were having issues with the clock. It should be okay now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate.
Every hour, two more people in the United Kingdom hear the life-changing words, “You have Parkinson’s.” As I have said before, for me, this is personal. A close family member was first diagnosed with Parkinson’s and later with progressive supranuclear palsy, a more aggressive condition, but my family’s experience is far from unique. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this debate—including Ellie from Farnham, who is in the Public Gallery today—and they all speak plainly about their daily reality, including mobility issues, speech challenges and the emotional strain that falls on individuals and their families. Their stories show extraordinary resilience, but also the gaps in support that remain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?
Gregory Stafford
I have also been approached by BeechBand. I hope the Minister agrees that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Government must ensure that where there are new, innovative technologies that could help sufferers of Parkinson’s or any other disease condition, they can get to the frontline to help people as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that early detection is key to fighting this disease? Is he, like me, encouraged by research from Moorfields eye hospital and University College London that found that a scan of the retina—the back of the eye—can detect Parkinson’s disease seven years before any symptoms present?
Gregory Stafford
I bow to the hon. Member’s experience on that. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, because these types of innovative technologies can make a significant difference and should be rolled out as quickly as possible.
Living with Parkinson’s brings real financial strain. On average, people spend more than £7,500 each year managing their conditions. That rises to £22,000 when lost earnings are included, so support is not just a clinical need, but an economic one.
In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, 289 people are currently living with Parkinson’s. The fact that we are—I believe—the only constituency served by three integrated care boards of different sizes brings with it not only challenges but a chance for comparison. Despite their different sizes, some of their challenges are the same, including the increasing number of emergency admissions across all three ICBs. Those numbers lay bare the scale of need and the pressure on services, and underline the urgent requirement for earlier access to specialist care. I raised these concerns in May as the shadow Minister, but I sadly remain unconvinced that the current Government have identified Parkinson’s as a strategic priority.
The new 10-year health plan imagines neighbourhood teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers. It is a positive vision, but it will work only if Parkinson’s specialists are part of those teams. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we often hear about artificial intelligence, remote monitoring and wearable devices, all of which have the potential to transform care through early intervention and better monitoring. The Government must look at those things as well.
I will end with three clear questions. First, in May, the Minister committed to discussing support from the point of diagnosis with Parkinson’s Connect, the Parkinson’s UK programme designed to equip NHS professionals. Have those discussions taken place, and what actions will follow? Secondly, the Minister has said that Parkinson’s nurses are
“worth their weight in gold”—[Official Report, 1 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 493WH.]
and I agree. What practical measures have been introduced to strengthen training and development for those nurses, particularly those who support patients with the most complex needs?
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working closely with charities such as Parkinson’s UK to ensure that the 10-year plan gives patients, carers and frontline staff the support they urgently need? Members on both sides of this Chamber share one goal: to get better diagnosis, better treatment and better support for people living with Parkinson’s. Action is what brings progress, and action is what our constituents need and deserve.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way he introduced the debate. Given the time, I will focus on the particular challenges that the Parky charter, which I strongly support, addresses.
Parkinson’s brings additional financial challenges for people with Parkinson’s and their families. In particular, I want to highlight the prescription charges faced by many people with Parkinson’s. England is the only part of the UK where people with Parkinson’s still pay for their prescriptions because the NHS medical exemption list has barely changed since it was created in 1968. To put that in context, that is the year that the Beatles’ “Hey Jude” was the UK’s biggest-selling single, and it was before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Medical knowledge was far behind what it is today, and it was a long time yet before I would be born.
I gently suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious issue. People with Parkinson’s who cannot afford their prescription sometimes reduce their dose or skip medication, risking hospital admission and irreversible damage to their health. Many people with Parkinson’s already hesitate about taking medication—I think of my father, who had Parkinson’s—because they are worried about the side effects or have difficulty accepting their diagnosis. Having to pay for prescriptions simply creates an extra barrier or a reason not to start medication, but taking that medicine can significantly help with the day-to-day management of symptoms, and can prevent falls and hospital admissions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my constituent David Reid, who has done a huge amount of work to promote this petition, including by wearing his Parky charter T-shirt around the Scottish Borders. I met him most recently at the Border Union show, where he spoke about the petition’s importance and his hope that it would get enough support for us to have a debate, and here we are.
Parkinson’s impacts every aspect of people’s daily lives, from making a cup of tea to getting dressed, spending time with friends and family, and much more. According to Parkinson’s UK, around 14,000 people in Scotland have a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK does outstanding work to support people with this terrible condition. In the Scottish Borders, I have met its teams many times, including recently in Galashiels, and have learned more about the helping hand it gives to people living with this terrible disease and to their families. I encourage anyone who is affected by Parkinson’s to attend one of its events if they need someone to talk to, need a bit more support, or simply want to get out and about to socialise. I thank everyone who volunteers for Parkinson’s UK in the Scottish Borders and across the UK. They do so much to ensure support for people living with the disease.
One in three people diagnosed with Parkinson’s are of working age, and more than 10,000 are under 50. We owe it to everyone with Parkinson’s to ensure they have the support they need and the best life they possible can.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I want to thank my constituent Ruth, who attended my recent drop-in surgery and asked me to speak today about an issue that is personal not only to her, but to my family and thousands of other families in my constituency and across the country. Ruth was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in March 2023 after a long, fragmented and exhausting journey. She went from GP to GP, and from test to test, waiting months and years for appointments. As her symptoms worsened, she felt that she had no choice but to seek a private neurologist, and she finally received the diagnosis that changed her life.
Community, information and honesty are the things that have helped Ruth since. That is why the “Movers and Shakers” podcast and organisations such as Parkinson’s UK are so important. Public figures speaking openly about related issues such as depression, the fear of falling and navigating care have cut through the stigma and reached thousands who felt unseen.
The Parky charter sets out clear, reasonable asks: faster access to consultants and follow-up care; clear guidance on diagnosis; a Parkinson’s passport to ease access to support; and timely access to physiotherapies, speech therapies and wider services. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. We need Parliament to act now. Families are asking for a system that does not leave them waiting, fighting or falling through the cracks.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate.
As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere.
I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April.
There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population.
The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Imagine being told that you have a progressive, incurable condition and then waiting over a year just to see a specialist. That is the reality for so many people with Parkinson’s and the number of people with Parkinson’s is set to double by 2050. When my constituent Carol was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2009, she was only 46 years old. Consultants told her then that they hoped a cure might come within a decade, but 16 years later there is nothing.
At this point, I must declare an interest. My daughter Molly is a PhD researcher with a brilliant team at the University of Southampton that is working to understand Parkinson’s, so that better treatments and cures can be found. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I know that great work is also happening elsewhere, particularly through the Brain Bank at Imperial College London. However, research alone is not enough; people living with Parkinson’s need care now.
Just before the general election last year, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, then in his shadow role, admitted in the “Parky Politics in the Pub” podcast that there were not enough neurologists and committed to fix it. He said:
“We campaigned hard on workforce to get the last Government to commit to doubling the number of medical places so we can train up staff—especially in neurology, where we have shortages.”
He said he would deliver that workforce plan, yet today waiting times are unacceptably long—not just for initial appointments, but for ongoing care.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the 459 constituents of mine who have signed this important petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as swift access to neurologists, access to specialist nurses is absolutely vital, as is having a named GP for long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease? One of my constituents who wrote to me said that her father has just had his medication changed and is having real problems with it, but he will not get to see anybody until March. We could reduce unplanned admissions by improving support.
Vikki Slade
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend has made that intervention, because I am just coming on to tell people about my constituent in Wimborne. He said that he, his brother and his nephew have all been diagnosed with Parkinson’s. When he was first diagnosed, he saw a Parkinson’s nurse every six months and then saw one annually. However, because there is now just one specialist Parkinson’s nurse covering my constituency, he has seen nobody for two years.
Karen, who is also from Wimborne, emailed me and said that she had an appointment with a neurologist and then one with a nurse, but now faces a 14-month wait for her next appointment. Across England, as we have heard, only half of patients meet the 18-week target, even though we know that early support—physiotherapy, speech therapy and clear information—keeps people healthy for longer.
If the Government are serious about transforming the NHS, they cannot allow people with progressive conditions who need a multidisciplinary approach to be forgotten. The NHS workforce plan is due in the spring. What assurance can the Minister give that neurology and Parkinson’s care in particular will feature strongly? It is great that the Government have expanded medical places, but what assessment has been made of how that will translate to neurology services? Given the training time required to generate such expertise, what is being done to bring consultants here from abroad to tackle the crisis now?
In my constituency, 333 people are living with Parkinson’s. On average, each one will be admitted to hospital at least once a year, two-thirds of them in an emergency, which will mean spending a week, unplanned, in an acute bed. That is simply not acceptable and we need to do better now.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In Stroud, 295 people have Parkinson’s disease, yet we had 960 admissions for it. Although we have a good turnout for the debate today, I believe that Parkinson’s gets less attention than other degenerative diseases. That must change, because it is much more common. As a GP, I would say that diagnosis for the disease is difficult. It can present in a huge number of ways—40 different symptoms, often with rigidity. The tremor can be due to other things such as essential tremor. It can even present with constipation or depression, and indeed with dementia, where it is called Lewy body dementia, which is associated with Parkinson’s. A GP cannot make the diagnosis; they have to wait for the outpatient specialist to make it, which is why the wait is so criminal.
We need comprehensive and co-ordinated care. I believe that neighbourhood health centres will be fantastic at delivering this care. Parkinson’s specialist nurses are absolutely crucial, as are multidisciplinary teams with physios and occupational therapists. Social prescribing—signposting and getting the right benefits—is also incredibly important. Indeed, there is good evidence that dancing is really good for Parkinson’s disease—that is something a little innovative. We need timely diagnosis of patients with Parkinson’s disease, and a co-ordinated and comprehensive care plan; and most of all, we need to give them back their dignity.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s is a life-changing, degenerative and deeply debilitating condition. I am grateful that we are taking the time to debate the issue and give voice to people living with Parkinson’s—people such as Matt Eagles, who lives in my constituency. Unlike many Parkinson’s sufferers, Matt has lived with the condition for more than 50 years. He was diagnosed at just seven years old. Parkinson’s, however, is not the defining thing about Matt; what truly stands out is his positivity. He speaks openly about the vulnerability and heartache, along with the courage, resilience and optimism that has helped him to navigate life with Parkinson’s. Matt has done a brilliant job of promoting the petition today, and is a passionate advocate for improving Parkinson’s care. Today’s debate is not only about recognising and championing people like Matt, who face the adversity of Parkinson’s with such optimism; it is a call to action for us as parliamentarians to engage seriously with how we can improve access to care and work towards a cure.
The Parky charter highlights some important changes to consider. Ensuring that everyone suspected of having Parkinson’s can see a specialist promptly and then have regular follow-ups is vital for timely and effective care. We need to provide people with immediate access to clear, relevant information when they are diagnosed, while the ongoing quest for a cure offers hope for a future where Parkinson’s no longer imposes such a heavy burden on those affected. Hope, support and dignity are what people with Parkinson’s deserve. I am deeply grateful to the 313 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who signed the petition, and to all those working towards a better future for those with Parkinson’s.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, in this very important debate. I thank Parkinson’s UK, Parkinson’s Care and especially the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, whose dedication and campaigning led to the huge number of people signing the petition. I am sure the Minister has seen how many MPs are in the Chamber and how many people are in the Public Gallery today. Lots of people will be watching at home as well.
In Putney, 163 people have Parkinson’s disease. Across the South West London ICB, 2,540 people were admitted with the disease in 2024-25. Overall, the NHS spends £325 million a year on unplanned admissions of people with Parkinson’s. This is a very big issue, which rightly deserves the attention it is getting today. I hope for some great answers from the Minister about what the NHS will be doing. First, we need more specialists for faster diagnosis. Many Members have mentioned the delays in diagnosis today, which is true in my constituency, but also in Northern Ireland, where one in 20 people wait more than five years for a diagnosis. Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, about this issue? What steps are the Government taking to solve the Parkinson’s diagnosis crisis? Secondly, we need instant information. St George’s University has the vital Parkinson’s Connect resource, and it is using it, but can that be rolled out throughout the country?
Thirdly, we need the Parkinson’s passport on social security. As many Members have mentioned, it is a fluctuating condition. The PIP system is failing people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers. Has that been raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)? Comprehensive care and more funding will allow us to deliver care, dignity and hope to everyone living with Parkinson’s and their families.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I pay tribute to everyone in Wales and across the United Kingdom who has campaigned so hard for people living with Parkinson’s. In Wales, we expect the number of people living with Parkinson’s to rise to more than 9,000 by 2030. Yet too many people trying to access the most basic elements of care, from diagnosis to rehabilitation, still face a postcode lottery. Welsh health boards do not have reliable plans to replace specialist staff when they leave, which means long gaps in access to expert care. Given the ongoing shortages in neurology, people can wait far too long to see anyone with the right expertise. For a degenerative condition that demands regular and specialist review, that is simply unacceptable.
Wales saw some of the worst disruption to rehabilitation services during the pandemic, and many of those pressures have not fully eased. People with Parkinson’s still report difficulties accessing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. When rehabilitation breaks down, people deteriorate physically, mentally and socially, and carers are left to carry an enormous burden—many are older spouses whose health is already fragile, and they deserve a system that recognises and supports them. We must also fix the basics. In Wales, 73% of people with Parkinson’s in hospital say that they do not receive their medication on time. A delay of just 30 minutes can make the difference between going home or staying another week on a ward. That should not be happening.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his excellent opening speech. In June this year, my father-in-law, Adrian Lawther, died after living with Parkinson’s for more than a decade. Adrian was a smart, decent and unassuming man, and very much lived the lessons of “two eyes and one mouth”. He did not miss a trick and spied everything, but only ever spoke when he needed to—a lesson he never managed to teach me, but one that I suspect quite a few of us around here would benefit from. He had an interest in the world around him and the world far overseas, and was incredibly kind and welcoming to me—which is no guarantee when marrying someone’s daughter. But for all the memories, the love, the grief and the sadness, we also saw up close the cruel impact of Parkinson’s on a person’s dignity and their quality of life, and on those around them.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way he has talked about his father-in-law. Does he agree that what he has said emphasises the need to make sure that families are also supported during Parkinson’s care?
Adam Jogee
I could not have put that better myself.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, hundreds of local people live with Parkinson’s, and that number is rising. It is a life-altering disease that destroys personal autonomy; it affects someone’s ability to talk, swallow, move and write. Cruel is not the word. For those who are suffering and need treatment now, the lack of care provision and the inaccessible treatment is simply unacceptable.
I think of my friend Alderman Lizzie Shenton, a former leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme district borough council, who I saw just last week. She has been diagnosed with the early onset of Parkinson’s in her 50s. She is very healthy and still has much do to. Lizzie had to wait 10 months for a consultant appointment to make a formal diagnosis, and she has been waiting for her DaT scan for five months, without which no medication or treatment can be prescribed.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the North Staffs Parkinson’s UK branch—the chair, Lorraine, the treasurer, Councillor David Grocott and the whole committee who do wonderful things week in and week out. I thank the Dubb family from the Westlands in Newcastle-under-Lyme for their annual fundraising 5k run and a massive cookout at their home—which smelled very good—all raising money for Parkinson’s UK. My constituent Julie Hibbs has long campaigned to add Parkinson’s to the medical exemption list. The Minister knows that I support those calls—I have raised them with her and others, and I will continue to do so.
The funding and availability of care for Parkinson’s patients do not match the severity of this disease and the desperate need for proper treatment. Getting those suffering from Parkinson’s the right care at the right time is critical to ensuring that their quality of life is as high as it can be, and that the cost of providing that is used as efficiently as possible. As more and more of us get Parkinson’s, those who will suffer from it and their loved ones deserve to know that the question of getting the right treatment is not one they will ever have to worry about.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am terribly sorry; we are not able to take any more Back-Bench speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and for making such a well-articulated case for why more needs to be done to support people with Parkinson’s. I also thank him for mentioning the Big Sing, which brought to mind a brilliant event I went to in July: Picnic in the Park, hosted by the Parkinson’s UK Mid Sussex group. Their choir and their band were there, and we all had a brilliant singalong. I very much enjoyed it, and I pay tribute to the group for what it is doing—bringing people together and reducing isolation, both for those with Parkinson’s and their loved ones.
There are people like my constituent Sophie, whose mum Janet was diagnosed with Parkinson’s six years ago. Janet was active, spoke multiple languages and had an impressive career in business, but Sophie says that Parkinson’s has robbed Janet of much of who she is. Despite raising the loss of her sense of smell with her GP several times, as well as other symptoms such as increasingly small handwriting, it still took more than five years for Janet to get a diagnosis.
We know that Parkinson’s predominantly affects men, but much less is known or understood about Parkinson’s in women, including how symptoms might interact with menstrual cycles and the menopause. Sophie worries that the dismissive response Janet received when trying to get a diagnosis may be a very common experience for women across the board, and I think Sophie may be on to something here.
The e-petition bringing forward the Parky charter matters profoundly, and it makes a lot of sense. I will not spend time repeating many of the points that hon. Members have made in the past hour.
Rachel Gilmour
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges faced by those living with Parkinson’s are far from isolated, and that across neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, there are calls for a joined-up neuro-optimal care pathway? A coherent national strategy is what is required.
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I agree with it.
Rather than repeat what other hon. Members have said, I will move to identifying the three or four main areas that the Liberal Democrats want to highlight, hopefully giving the Minister more time to address the many points that hon. Members have raised so far in the debate. Those issues are mental health, social care, work and medicines availability.
On mental health—and I think this is a critical point—nearly half of people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety or depression, and up to 60% will experience psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Yet mental health support remains inconsistent and inadequate generally, and specifically for people with Parkinson’s.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of mental health support for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Peter Cook, who is doing great work as a trustee of the Parkinsons.Me charity, and also to Paul Mayhew-Archer MBE, who, as well as having written “The Vicar of Dibley,” is now doing fantastic work campaigning for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease?
Alison Bennett
Of course I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Peter Cook and to Paul Mayhew-Archer for their campaigning.
The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve regular mental health check-ups, access to walk-in mental health hubs and timely specialist dementia care. No one should have to fight the system while they are already fighting their condition. Social care is a crisis that cannot be ignored any longer. Parkinson’s is a progressive and fluctuating condition that affects every aspect of daily life, yet people are too often left without the support that they need to live with dignity.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that diagnosis is just the beginning, because too many people tell us that after receiving that life-changing news, they just feel abandoned? Nearly one quarter receive no information about Parkinson’s services and no adequate information about their condition, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that they receive that?
Alison Bennett
I am happy to agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it also applies to the loved ones of people receiving a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
We need better social care for all people when they are faced with a disability. We need there to be more respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and a system that recognises the specific needs of people with neurological conditions.
On work—here I am thinking in particular of my friend Rob, whom many of my hon. Friends will also know—we must ensure that people who have Parkinson’s and are of working age can live and work and participate in work with independence and dignity wherever possible. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are fighting for a new right to flexible working, and the right to work from home for every disabled person unless there is a significant business reason otherwise.
The Liberal Democrats also want to adopt a new accessibility standard for public spaces and embed in UK law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that support moves with the person and does not just stay with the original employer. That is why we are calling for adjustment passports—records of the modifications, equipment and adjustments that a disabled person uses—so that when they change jobs, their support goes with them. That seems to be plain common sense.
On medicines and their availability, we must speed up access to new treatments. It is simply unacceptable that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has seen its workforce cut.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I want to commend the Poole and District Branch of Parkinson’s UK but also, on that particular point, tell the story of Carla, whose husband was affected by a lack of access to time-critical medication. Does the hon. Member agree that it is critical that the Government do everything they can to speed up access?
Alison Bennett
I agree wholeheartedly.
The MHRA workforce has been cut by 40%, and that has slowed down the arrival of new therapies for people who desperately need them. We should be halving the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients, not lengthening it.
None of this is impossible. It requires us to listen to people living with Parkinson’s—really listen to their fears, needs, hopes and experiences. The Parky charter sets out a clear and achievable path. It demands dignity and fairness, and that the Government finally deliver the timely, specialist, compassionate care that every person with Parkinson’s—like Sophie’s mum, Janet—should be able to count on. Today, let us send a message to everyone living with Parkinson’s: we see you; we hear you; and we stand with you. I want to send an equally clear message to the Government and the Minister, whom I thank for being here today: the time for half measures and for excuses is over. The time to act—seriously, decisively and with compassion—is now.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and I thank the charities and organisations including Parkinson’s UK and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine for meeting me and sharing the insights into Parkinson’s that they have as patients and clinicians.
In the UK, 166,000 people have Parkinson’s. It is a progressive neurological disorder that can start with a tremor or muscle stiffness, sleep problems or a whole range of symptoms, and end in complications such as swallowing difficulties, falls and bone fractures. Like all degenerative conditions, it impacts not only the individual but their family. It is vital that our NHS has the neurologists and therapists to care for people with Parkinson’s, because they depend on them for world-leading care. Unfortunately, this is an area in which we could do better. The UK was ranked 44th out of 45 European countries for the number of neurologists per head of population. The UK has only one neurologist per 100,000 patients, compared with one for every 25,000 patients in France and Germany, and one in five patients here has no access to a Parkinson’s disease nurse.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The real-world experience in North Norfolk is very much like that. It is a struggle to secure the care that people need. We have a shortage of specialist care and Parkinson’s nurses, and those are just some of the things that our rural health system struggles with. Does the hon. Member agree that those living with Parkinson’s in rural communities such as North Norfolk need support and care provided in a way that is equally accessible to them?
Dr Johnson
As I am a rural MP myself, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him.
The problem is with wider specialisms, too. According to the 2022 audit by Parkinson’s UK, just 40% of people with Parkinson’s had access to a speech and language therapist, 45% had access to an occupational therapist and 62% had access to a physiotherapist. I want to particularly highlight that to the Minister because there are no treatments that slow down the progression of Parkinson’s disease, but evidence published last year suggests that exercise might do, so physiotherapy—making sure that people are doing the right exercises to help them—is important. What plans does the Minister have to recruit, train and retain the NHS Parkinson’s health workforce? For the benefit of charities, hospitals and patients, will she shed any light on how her delayed long-term workforce plan, when it is published, might assist in that mission?
As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), Parkinson’s disease patients can live for many years, often with huge positivity. I was inspired to read of Neil Russell, a 65-year-old gentleman who ran from London to Barcelona—almost 1,000 miles—to raise money for Parkinson’s disease research. One in three of those living with Parkinson’s is of working age. It is crucial that they can get support, because many work as doctors, nurses, chief executives, scientists, journalists and in other professions. I was inspired by a meeting that I was privileged to have with Dr Acheson last week. He is not only working as an A&E consultant, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost 10 years ago, but is leading work on a time-critical medicines project.
We have already heard that medicines for Parkinson’s are time critical. If people with Parkinson’s do not get their medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time, it can lead to them being unable to walk, talk or swallow. Research by Parkinson’s UK has found that 58% of people with Parkinson’s—a clear majority—do not get their medication on time every time when in hospital. That will not only cost hospitals £65.8 million in excess bed days and readmissions, but cost over 150 people their lives this year. That is inexcusable.
Just half of NHS trusts provide staff with training for time-critical medication, and one in four trusts in England does not have policies allowing people with Parkinson’s to take their own medication in hospital. That leaves patients capable but unable to take their medication, and they suffer detriment as a result. I was pleased that last week—following repeated questions to the Minister, both in the Chamber and outside—that the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), met me, Dr Simin Nikou from the RCEM, and Dr Acheson to talk about self-administration of medicines. I am pleased that the Minister was able to commit that the chief pharmaceutical officer will work with those individuals to ensure that there is a protocol for self-administered medicines in A&E for those who are capable of taking them, and to ensure that the protocols for time-critical medicines are enhanced.
NHS England launched a three-year national quality improvement initiative on time-critical medications that is not yet complete. I worried that the Minister’s eagerness to merge NHS England and her own Department may cause such ongoing initiatives to be simply lost. I encourage the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but, from conversations with her ministerial colleague, I understand that NHS England’s three-year initiative on time-critical medicines will be completed.
Research is important because, at the moment, treatment for Parkinson’s is symptom-relief treatment, not disease-modifying treatment. In fact, some of it is not symptom-relief; it is treatment to relieve side effects of the treatments that are providing symptom relief. Ramping up research is an important step towards finding better treatment, and hopefully chasing down a cure for Parkinson’s.
Between 2019 and 2024, the last Conservative Government invested almost £80 million into research for Parkinson’s disease, on top of a £375 million investment over five years for research into neurodegenerative diseases. Will the Minister confirm whether that funding commitment will be renewed as part of her Government’s spending review? What assessment has the Minister made of companies pulling out of billions of pounds of life sciences investment in the UK? How does she think that will impact critical research into conditions such as Parkinson’s? Is she working with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to resolve matters for the health sector?
Within the treatments that we have so far, Produodopa was approved in February 2024, and made available on the NHS, under the last Conservative Government, to around 900 people with Parkinson’s. As people with Parkinson’s often struggle with taking numerous tablets to manage fluctuating symptoms, delivering a continuous dose of medication 24 hours a day by a canula under the skin can be ideal to manage symptoms day and night. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of Produodopa so far? What steps is she taking to make sure that more people with Parkinson’s have access to that potentially life-changing treatment? More broadly, what is she doing to mitigate the supply issues for some Parkinson’s medications?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, particularly because I had a magnificent speech I was not able to make. She is speaking about health-related issues, but I want to draw attention to the personal independence payment assessment process for people with Parkinson’s, and to reference the adult disability payment in Scotland. Does the shadow Minister agree that there is a much better system for assessing people’s needs, and would she recommend it to the Minister?
Dr Johnson
The debate today is about the Parky charter. I am sure the Minister will answer that question in her speech—at least I hope she will.
The Government established the Neuro Forum, which was designed to address the gaps in treatment and care for people affected by neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, but its achievements so far are unclear. Progress in this space demands clear action, not just empty roundtables, so will the Minister confirm how many times the Neuro Forum has met in the year since it was established, what budget and resources have been allocated to it, and what its successes have been so far?
The Government want to shift towards technology. New, affordable technology is available: focused ultrasound can help with tremor; at the most invasive, there are deep brain stimulators. There is also very simple technology. I recently met the former MP Steve Double, who gave me a device that shakes to put on my wrist for a few minutes. Apparently, people find that it helps with dyskinesia, rigidity, walking problems and speech difficulties. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of technology as a treatment pathway for people living with Parkinson’s in the UK? What is she doing to facilitate research so that, when someone has a good idea that may benefit patients, it is brought to the fore as quickly as possible?
I note the Minister’s response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Will she clarify whether NHS England’s neurology transformation programme will indeed be concluding at the end of this financial year? Will she reassure us that the conclusion of the programme, which includes Parkinson’s disease treatments, is not related to the Department’s abolition of NHS England? What will she replace it with?
The linchpin of the e-petition is that it asks the Government to consider implementing the Parky charter, which encompasses faster diagnosis, better support, welfare support, access to multidisciplinary care and investment in research—all things that I and others call on the Minister to give answers to today. Given the Government’s decision to do away with the major conditions strategy, I am concerned that Parkinson’s disease will not get the research and workforce it requires.
People can live with Parkinson’s for very many years. For the quality of life of the patients and their families, greater consistency is urgently required in the administration of time-critical medicines in hospitals. Parkinson’s is a condition that is time-critical by its neurodegenerative nature; the Minister’s actions must be equally urgent and time-critical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue and the many hon. Members who contributed.
I acknowledge each one of the 18 Back-Bench speeches and numerous interventions, and particularly all the constituents and campaigners that hon. and right hon. Members mentioned. We also have a packed Public Gallery, which goes to show just how important this issue is. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. I am unlikely to answer all of them, but my officials have noted every question asked; anything that I do not cover in my speech will be covered in writing to the hon. Member involved.
Parkinson’s disease presents one of the most complex and growing challenges for our health and care system. Given an ageing population and the condition’s rising prevalence, Parkinson’s demands not only specialist clinical expertise, but co-ordinated social care, community support, and innovative approaches to treatment and management. The impact on those affected is profound, and addressing their needs requires a system that is integrated and responsive to both current pressures and future demands.
The Parky charter is a five-point manifesto created by the Movers and Shakers to tackle what are described as “systematic failings” in care. It calls on Government to deliver five commitments: speedy access to specialists, instant information for patients, a Parkinson’s passport to streamline support, comprehensive and co-ordinated care, and a renewed quest for a cure. The charter aims to ensure timely diagnosis, dignity and better quality of life for everyone affected by this fast-growing neurological condition. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Movers and Shakers only a few weeks ago, along with Parkinson’s UK. I recognise the urgency of their calls. I shared with them my commitment to improving outcomes for people with Parkinson’s and their families.
I acknowledge the need to improve access to Parkinson’s specialists. Through the elective recovery plan, the aim is for 92% of patients to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks by March 2029, supported by millions of additional elective appointments across specialties, including neurology. Our recently published 10-year health plan for England sets out a vision for neighbourhood health services, bringing multidisciplinary teams closer to communities and ensuring that Parkinson’s expertise is embedded in care pathways. We will also publish a 10-year workforce plan, which will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them, including patients with Parkinson’s. Those measures, combined with digital consultations and integrated care models, aim to reduce waiting times, tackle workforce shortages and deliver timely, personalised care for people living with Parkinson’s.
As of August 2025, there are over 2,000 full-time equivalent doctors working in the speciality of neurology in NHS trusts and other core organisations in England. That is over 90—nearly 5%—more than in 2024. It includes over 1,000 full-time consultants, which is almost 50—over 5%—more than in 2024. We will soon publish a 10-year workforce plan to create a workforce ready to deliver a transformed service.
Sadly, Parkinson’s cannot currently be cured, but it can be managed effectively with the right interventions. That is why we have embedded Parkinson’s care with broader neurological strategies, including the neurology transformation programme and the RightCare progressive neurological conditions toolkit. Those initiatives aim to reduce variation in care, improve safety and deliver integrated services across the NHS. They set out what good treatment looks like and support integrated care systems to provide the right service at the right time.
We are also taking steps to ensure that people have better access to information. In the 10-year health plan, there is a strong emphasis on using technology and community-based services to provide joined-up care and practical advice closer to home. Initiatives such as Diagnosis Connect, partly inspired by Parkinson’s UK’s referral programme, will help newly diagnosed individuals to receive instant information and support from trusted sources. We are expanding access to digital health tools so that patients and carers can manage symptoms, access guidance and connect with specialist teams without delay.
Consistent and timely access to medicines is key to maintaining a good quality of life and good symptom control for people with Parkinson’s, as well as preventing the complications that could otherwise lead to unnecessary hospital admissions. A focus on time-critical medicines is a key priority for NHS England’s medicines safety improvement programme, which is seeking to reduce severe, avoidable harm associated with medicines. Work is currently under way involving 80 NHS trusts, with 48 of them receiving active support for innovation and improvement. Practical tools such as the RightCare toolkit and resources from Parkinson’s UK’s “Get It On Time” campaign are also helping staff and patients to plan for hospital stays and optimise medication schedules.
While we currently have no plans to offer automatic entitlement to benefits, reforms to the welfare system are intended to improve support for people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Proposals in our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper mark a significant step in that regard, by moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach, so that people receive the tailored help needed to live with dignity and independence, and to work if they are able to do so.
For those who cannot work, we will guarantee a strong safety net, so that those with the most severe lifelong health conditions have their incomes protected through an additional premium and are exempt from future reassessment. We have recently published our consultation response to the Green Paper recently, and we will set out detailed policy proposals in due course.
Any changes to personal independence payment eligibility will come after the Timms review—an ambitious and inclusive review that aims to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. To ensure that lived experience is at the heart of that work, the review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts.
There is currently no plan to review the medical exemption list of conditions. However, I assure all Members that I am acutely aware of the list, and that it has been added to only once since its inception in 1968, which was to add cancer in 2009. However, approximately 89% of prescription items are currently dispersed free of charge, and a wide range of exemptions from prescription charges exist, including free prescriptions for everyone under the age of 19—or 16 if they are in full-time employment—and over 60.
Innovative treatments are transforming the outlook for people with Parkinson’s disease. The NHS has recently rolled out—let me try to say it now—Produodopa. No, I did not do well on that, but it is helping patients with advanced Parkinson’s to achieve more stable symptom control and to improve quality of life. The technology uses a small, wearable pump to deliver medication under the skin, managing symptoms more steadily through the day and night than traditional oral tablets. The 10-year plan commits to make wearables standard in preventive, chronic and post-acute NHS treatment by 2035. We will provide devices for free in areas where need and deprivation are highest. Alongside such research, we are driving breakthroughs in cell and gene therapies, and large-scale trials testing multiple disease-modifying drugs.
Of course, future progress depends on research, which is why my Department invests more than £1.6 billion each year on research through its research delivery arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In the financial year 2024-25, the NIHR has committed £6 million to Parkinson’s disease projects through its research programmes. In addition, last month, the world’s largest clinical trial for treatments to stop or slow the progression of Parkinson’s opened for recruitment. I encourage researchers to keep applying for funding through the NIHR. We would love to see more proposals.
We have set up the UK-wide Neuro Forum to work across the four nations. I will ask officials to explore a conversation specifically on Parkinson’s and how better to share practice across the four nations.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for opening the debate, and all Members who have contributed to the actions I have outlined. The reforms echo the priorities set out in the Parky charter. By aligning policy with the charter’s five key asks, we can build a health and care system that delivers dignity, certainty and hope for every person with Parkinson’s and their families.
Paul Davies
I will be brief, Ms Lewell. First, many thanks again to the Movers and Shakers group—the work it puts in is absolutely fantastic and amazing. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate. The Minister will have seen that the consensus across the Chamber is very clear on what we need to do.
During the debate, I was thinking of my constituent, Liz Ryan, whom I mentioned. She suffers from Parkinson’s, and she is an amazing individual. She just wants to have her independence, to be treated with dignity and to live life to the fullest she can with this condition. She is not alone, and I know from talking to other sufferers that that is exactly what they want too. Let us adopt the Parky charter. Let us do the work we need to do to give those people that chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.