Parkinson’s Disease

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs a little memory check, because we did not propose a deal.

The British Chagossians, some of whom are watching from the Gallery—I pay tribute to them for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years—have been betrayed by Labour. Their rights have been ignored, as have their fears, leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and coming here. Labour’s surrender Bill, as presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine protected area—one of the most important and largest marine environments in the world—which has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific research and development. That is at risk, and promises and aspirations announced by Ministers to ensure that it continues are not reflected in the Bill.

Shockingly, Labour’s surrender Bill as drafted does nothing to safeguard, defend and protect our national security. Labour is surrendering British sovereignty and territory to a country that is increasingly aligned with China.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady describes this as a surrender Bill. Can she please tell me which flag will be flying over the Chagos islands if this is a so-called British surrender? It will be a British flag that is flying. Is that a point she understands?

[Wendy Morton]

There will be one flag that is flying, and that is the white flag of surrender.

Thousands of Mauritian public officials are being trained—or should that be “indoctrinated”?—by China on courses the Chinese are paying for. Both Russia and China are signing partnerships with Mauritius, but Labour’s surrender Bill fails to protect our interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

It can be very easy to back something when you do not have to pay for it, but let us move on.

Now, the Government are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia and our military assets and interests in the Indo-Pacific. Labour’s surrender Bill is bad for British taxpayers, bad for our national security, bad for the marine environment and bad for the Chagossians. It also grants Ministers huge powers to make further decisions and avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 1 would in effect block Labour’s surrender treaty coming into force and the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory unless and until Ministers reveal the legal advice they have received about Britain’s ability to extend and exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia after the initial 99-year period. The Government constantly claim they have secured the military base, but they have totally failed to do that. All they have done is pay Mauritius £35 billion to lease back a base we currently own, but only for 99 years. We have no certainty whatsoever about the fate of the base after the 99-year period. After paying Mauritius £35 billion, it would kindly give us the option to extend the treaty for another 40 years, but on what terms? If we extend it, will Mauritius make it conditional on more extortionate payments? What if we are outbid by a hostile power? In fact, what is to stop China putting in a bid? If no agreement is reached before the specified deadline and the base is offered to another country, what will happen to all the fixed assets belonging to Britain? We have had no answers from the Government on any of these vital points, which is unacceptable, and the terms of the treaty and the Bill, as they stand, are reckless.

Amendment 7 is necessary because the Government’s legal justification for surrendering the Chagos islands constantly shifts, because it has no legal basis. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) explained on Second Reading, the Government’s entire legal case is spurious. Many of us have been asking where the binding judgment we are constantly told is inevitable would actually come from. No credible answers have been forthcoming. We know it cannot be the International Court of Justice, and we know that a case at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea would see the UK able to put forward a decent legal argument. Then the Government completely contradicted their own argument about the electromagnetic spectrum. They are planning to dissolve a strategically invaluable British overseas territory, and they cannot even tell us on what legal basis they are doing so.

It looks as though this is part of a wider sinister picture—the Government’s relationship with China. We know that the Government are desperate for Chinese investment to help grow our economy, which they are trashing with their reckless economic policies. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has credited China for its support in enabling Mauritius to gain sovereignty over the Chagos islands. Why? Because China wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius, which it believes to have strategic advantages. Once again, the Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up for our strategic interests against China. Amendment 7 would flush out the truth once and for all.

Taken together, amendments 3, 6 and 5 would delete a huge and unacceptable Henry VIII power that the Government are brazenly trying to award themselves, and would give this House the oversight it is entitled to on the implementation of the treaty. It is wholly unacceptable—in fact, it is quite outrageous—for the Government to give themselves such a sweeping power that they could, through an Order in Council,

“make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.

This is a totally open-ended power. The military base itself is in scope, and so are the rights of Chagossians. The House should not be deprived of a voice on these matters of huge concern. Our amendments would ensure that this House has a voice and a vote. That is totally right and proper.

Turning to our new clauses, the Government could have inserted a money authorisation clause into the Bill. They chose not to and no wonder. The Government want to spare their own disgruntled MPs the ugly spectacle of having to vote in favour of spending tens of billions of their constituents’ money to Mauritius, as Britain’s economy sinks under the weight of the Chancellor’s inflation, unemployment, debt and taxes. Labour is asking the hard-pressed British taxpayer, already struggling under the weight of the Chancellor’s punitive tax rises, to stump up £35 billion to lease back a territory we already own and which we are not legally obliged to give away. As it leaves pensioners vulnerable and cold, destroys family farms and crushes businesses, the Minister is content to send our constituents’ hard-earned money to Mauritius with no strings attached, allowing the Government there to cut taxes—tax cuts over 6,000 miles away and tax rises at home. And Labour is inflicting this surrender tax on the British people because of its abject failure to negotiate. We all know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses, but this is a new low. At seemingly every twist and turn, this Government have rolled over and capitulated to the demands of the Government of Mauritius.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Lady mentions that she does not believe there is a legal basis. What was the legal basis for the previous Government, when they conducted 11 rounds of negotiation and achieved absolutely nothing?

[Wendy Morton]

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past year and several months, but we have gone over this time and again in this Chamber. There was no legal basis. We stopped—[Interruption.] Maybe I will repeat this very slowly for his benefit: we stopped the negotiations.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend speaks with real force and authority, and I have heard her message clearly.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

This Israeli Government continue to perpetrate horrific and appalling violence against Palestinian people, and that is also against the interests of Israel and Israeli people. We know that Hamas are only interested in death and destruction. I welcome the action today as a sign of willingness to take action against anyone who might be a bar or a block to a two-state solution. The Minister has already heard from Members from all parts of the House and been urged to take specific steps, but will he confirm what options are open to him to support and strengthen the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want a peaceful future? What action can he take against anyone who is a bar to a two-state solution in the future?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has rightly focused on the important questions that are at issue, such as how we can maintain the viability of a two-state solution. That is the only route to peaceful harmony, with two states side by side, and it is on that objective that our efforts are focused.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), met officials from Ukraine on the issue of anti-corruption just a few weeks ago. This is an issue I have spoken about directly with President Zelensky in the past, and it is an issue that the US traditionally has taken a big interest in. I was first in Ukraine looking at those issues in opposition. At that stage, the UK was funding a lot of work with non-governmental organisations. That work must continue to break the corruption—a lot of it a legacy, frankly, of the Soviet Union.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. We have already seen the extensive role of the Russian shadow fleet in the Black sea and across the world, most recently in the Baltics. What further action can the UK Government take to tackle the role of the Russian Black sea fleet in the conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

One of the issues is how third countries, some of them significant countries, are still facilitating the Russian shadow fleet because of the illicit oil that finds its way into various economies. Those are conversations that we and our European partners continue to take forward. If we are serious about tackling Putin’s aggression, we have to be serious about the revenues that finance it.

Syria

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I quickly remind Members that I am going to run this statement to the end. I think the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley referred to Minister Falconer by name, which of course he should not have done.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to HTS co-operating with the international community on the monitoring of chemical weapons. Given the situation on the ground in Syria and the ongoing chaos, what confidence does he have that there is the capacity for HTS to conduct that work? Is there anything the UK Government can do to support the capacity in the region to keep those weapons safe?

[Mr Lammy]

Working with the OPCW on the ground is hugely important, and the work of the UN envoy is also essential. We will do all that we can to ensure those stockpiles are properly protected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes and more yes. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting this very important issue. The NATO alliance is the strongest and best alliance that the modern world has seen, and the UK will continue to impress that point on anyone who will listen.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T7. Given the upcoming audit into the UK’s relationship with China, how does the Foreign Secretary plan to strike a balance between economic growth and growing security concerns about China’s dominance in critical national infrastructure and Chinese-made IoT modules?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. On coming into government, it was important that we conducted a China audit right across Whitehall to look at the range of relationships. Underpinning that are the three Cs: we will co-operate with China where we can, we will compete with China where we should, and we will challenge China where we must.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman has a point. This Government have been in power for three months, and we have a lot to clear up, given the mess that was left to us—he is right about that. That work begins with the China audit.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that when it comes to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is vital to co-ordinate rules globally, including with China, to protect British people and our technological infrastructure?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, 100%.

Middle East

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to raise UNRWA. That is why the Government restored funding to UNRWA, it is why we gave it a further £21 million, and it is why £1 million of that funding was used to help it to implement Madame Colonna’s reforms. It would be a catastrophe to see the end of UNRWA—and it would be wholly counterproductive for Israel, by the way. The situation in the occupied territories is fragile as it is. To take away UNRWA would be catastrophic. For all those reasons, I have urged the Israeli Government to step back and not implement what has passed through the Knesset.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

A year ago, despite the undoubted challenges, there were early signs of improved relations between Israel, the Gulf states and others that were pressing Israel to move towards the two-state solution that we in this House would all like to see. The Iranian regime, however, through its own actions and those of its proxies, has succeeded in engulfing the region in chaos and conflict, causing many of the disasters we have heard about this afternoon. What is being done, in partnership with our Gulf state allies, to counter that activity and bring stability and the prospect of regional peace back to the area?

[Mr Lammy]

I was in Jordan a few weeks ago speaking with King Abdullah and my Jordanian counterpart about their air bridge proposal and the planning we have helped them with to ensure they can at least drop aid into Gaza. On the efforts to bring about a hostage and ceasefire deal, I have been speaking to the Qataris and the Egyptians, particularly given their relations with —or routes into—Hamas. We continue to speak to the Saudis and others in the region to try to bring about that peace. I have no doubt that Arab partners want to play a role in that peace, but they will be able to do so only if there is a proper path towards a two-state solution.