Parkinson’s Disease

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for raising this issue. As Members are well aware, I have been a vocal opponent of the changes to PIP, and I will concentrate specifically on PIP issues, how they affect people with Parkinson’s, and why it is important that the Government are careful about what they do with the PIP benefit and money in relation to those who have this disease. When we consider the care that is needed for those who suffer from Parkinson’s, it is a perfect example of those who might well miss out on the care that they need the most.

The hon. Gentleman set the scene well in relation to the problems that come with Parkinson’s, and others who have spoken also referred to them. We can all rightly understand how the personal independence payment costs may overstretch local authorities and providers—the NHS on the mainland and our underfunded trusts in Northern Ireland. The entire purpose of PIP, of course, is not to compensate for the illness in some way; it is to help someone live with the practicalities of the illness. That is the purpose of PIP and why I support it. I am really concerned about what might happen.

PIP is not a supplement to keep people off work. It can help people in work, which is part of what the Government say the purpose is. PIP exists to help offset the cost of being sick or disabled and, as such, is an effective health intervention. A recent freedom of information request, however, found that 36% of people with neurological disorders were at very high risk of losing out on PIP. That could be even higher for people with Parkinson’s, as even if someone has scored four points previously in a “daily living” category, the rapidly fluctuating nature of the condition means that it is not guaranteed that that will be scored again.

We need to understand what Parkinson’s is, what it delivers and the importance of it. Without the financial support needed to help with the additional costs of sickness and disability, and with many households losing passported carer’s allowance, unmet need will likely transfer to local authorities, as part of their statutory obligations. I am concerned about the scenario the Government could find themselves in if they remove or reduce personal independence payments, and take away the carer’s allowance. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said during Prime Minister’s questions today that a family could lose £12,000 a year; other calculations that indicate it could be £10,000 a year. The financial impact will be ginormous.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am glad that the hon. Member has brought this point up. Hon. Members have mentioned that there are 153,000 sufferers in the UK, 10% of whom rely on PIP. It is vital for them to live and work independently. I share the hon. Member’s concern that any reduction in sufferers’ access to PIP will not only have serious financial consequences but lead to a diminishment of their independence.

[Jim Shannon]

That sums up the thrust of my comments. I am really concerned by what the Government are pursuing and the impacts that it will have. This is coming from the people on the frontline—I would call them the people on the coal quay—who understand exactly what it means.

Equally, if people with Parkinson’s are no longer able to afford the extra heating needed to help with their debilitating muscle spasms, they are more likely to have a fall. That will increase hospital admissions and stays, as well as social care support for fractures and joint replacements that could have been prevented by making sure that people retain their moneys and do not see corners cut in their care. It is not just individual health outcomes that will be affected. With a quarter of councils in England saying that they are on the brink of bankruptcy and other providers across the UK being stretched, this policy could have devastating impacts on local services.

I will conclude with this point, because I want to keep to time, Chair. When we think about care for Parkinson’s patients, we must think of the effect of removing PIP from those people. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I ask that he convey the concern that has been expressed in the debate to the relevant Minister in DWP and fight the fight to ensure that these people have the care that they need in the most cost-effective way possible.

UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring the future of the UK Health Security Agency campus at Porton Down, in my Salisbury constituency, before the House again this evening. I say “again” because 15 years ago, on 22 June 2010, as an eager, newly elected, young MP, I raised the uncertain future of the institution in my first ever Adjournment debate. I did so again on 11 September 2013 and again on 24 June 2015, at the start of my second term as Salisbury’s MP.

In one sense, a lot has happened in the past 15 years, but sadly, in another sense, nothing has happened. The project to relocate to Harlow, in Essex, is apparently no closer to completion, but neither have the highly skilled workers at Porton Down been given any assurances that they can stay put. I know that this matter will concern you, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that a number of residents in your constituency of Romsey and Southampton North, which is adjacent to my constituency, will be working at Porton.

As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in response to my oral question on 13 March, two months ago, this

“has been running around the system so long that is now used in a case study for senior civil servant recruitment.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]

As the House of Commons Library said in a note to me on 22 January this year,

“neither UKHSA nor the Department for Health and Social Care have published an account of this programme to date, nor published any formal reports setting out the current state of the programme.”

The National Audit Office published its report, “Investigation into the UK Health Security Agency’s health security campus programme”, in February last year. That report sets out the key facts on and decision points in UKHSA’s programme, including its history, the causes of the delays and the issues so far at the Harlow site. I will not rehearse all those this evening, but reading the report may be instructive for the Minister.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I remember him bringing the matter before the House before; we have been in the House for the same amount of time, although he is much younger than me. Does he agree that replacing and modernising the UKHSA’s facilities through the programme is crucial to ensuring that the UK has the capabilities to identify, study and respond to the most dangerous pathogens in the world? Perhaps the way forward is to secure changes and to ask the Government to step in to assist the UKHSA to continue the crucial and excellent work that it already does.

[John Glen]

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman for his support this evening, and he anticipates some of the points I will make later on.

I want also to refer to the Public Accounts Committee, which opened an inquiry into the UKHSA health security campus last year. The Committee heard evidence from the outgoing chief executive Professor Dame Jenny Harries and Shona Dunn, the second permanent secretary, but it was unable to publish a full report owing to the Dissolution of Parliament and instead published its conclusions and recommendations in a letter in May last year. There is a lack of clarity over where we are with these plans, and my simple purpose today is to secure the Government’s assessment of where we are now, 10 months into the new Administration.

Since that Adjournment debate in 2010, four general elections have been fought and I have had five years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and seven as a Minister in four roles, but since 2015 I have never been offered any briefing on the future of the facility at Porton and on whether that initial decision, given the events of recent years and a sixfold increase in the costs—rather more than inflation—will be followed through on. As the constituency MP, I am eager to get to the bottom of the matter, and in seeking an update from the Minister this evening—and I certainly do not hold her individually responsible, given that she has only been in post for just over 14 weeks—I do want to seek an understanding about the financial obligations of the programme.

Chronic Urinary Tract Infections

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am not well today for the very reason that we are here. I may need to sit down during my speech if that is okay. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this incredibly important debate. [Interruption.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a difficult subject for those who suffer from this condition. I will give an example in my speech, as one of my staff members suffers from it. We are deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for bringing this forward. It is important to hear personal stories from sufferers, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and that they are given the opportunity to express themselves on the importance of this issue to them personally and to all our constituents.

[Dr Gardner]

As hon. Members may have guessed, this debate is not only important to thousands of women across the country—according to the Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign, about 1.7 million women suffer from chronic UTIs—but incredibly personal to me. I have suffered from UTIs as a result of menopause for more than 10 years, and received a diagnosis of chronic UTI in 2023.

I do not think many people realise how debilitating and excruciating chronic UTI can be. At my worst, I wondered how I could go on. I even changed from a beloved lecturing job to one at NICE because I wanted to change things from within, and it is why I am an MP now. I have tried almost everything; I was even considering—as a final step before the final, final step—having my bladder removed.

Although my NHS consultant gave me Hiprex—methenamine hippurate—thank God, which is life-changing for me, he finally shrugged his shoulders and said that I would just have to live with this condition. In desperation, I tracked down a specialist who worked in private practice. How lucky I was to have the money. I can confidently claim that Dr Catriona Anderson saved my life, which I do not say lightly.

Chronic UTIs can lead to hospitalisation—I have been twice—and sepsis and death. I have a long list of all the drugs that I am on, but I will not read it out. I believe this is another case of how women’s medical conditions continue to be misunderstood, under-researched and underfunded. To illustrate that point, there is a belief that UTIs are more serious in men than in women. I acknowledge that men’s physiology—men have a longer urethra than women—means that they are less likely to develop a UTI, although the possible presence of an enlarged prostate means that they may experience restrictive urine flows and develop a UTI. That is certainly the case in older men. Consequently, all men are recommended seven-day courses of antibiotics compared with the three-day courses that women are recommended. By the way, there are three antibiotics to treat UTIs. Trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin are the top ones, but I am allergic to them, so I am on cephalexin when I need it.

There is a lack of acknowledgement that poorly treated UTIs can lead to bacteria becoming embedded in bladders. Incidentally, a much shorter journey in women means that the diligence afforded to men is not afforded to women. In addition, women’s immune response to pathogenic bacteria in the bladder is oestrogen-dependent, and so it is also age-related. Lack of official recognition of chronic UTIs means that women do not receive treatment equal to what men. I am a molecular biologist, but I will not bore Members by setting out the different types of receptors in the urethral lining of the bladder.

I will further illustrate this point in simpler terms. A campaigner told me how her doctor, who repeatedly prescribed her three-day antibiotic courses for her chronic UTI, prescribed her husband, when he presented with a UTI for the first time, a month-long course, which would entirely clear the infection, of course, and minimise risk of recurrence. That says it all. Incidentally, chronic prostatitis is recognised by NICE.

As has been mentioned, for many women—approximately 70%—three-day courses will be sufficient, but for rest of women, three-day courses clear only some bacteria. Those that remain are relatively resistant; they then increase in population and there is recurrence. Essentially, repeated short courses establish a system of natural selection for resistant bacteria. It also means that the remaining bacteria then have time to invade the bladder and become embedded, finally leading to chronic UTIs. So, patients are stuck in a loop.

The use of the useless urine dipstick test, which is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, and of the midstream urine test, which is even worse, means that infections go undetected. As a result, no antibiotics are prescribed until the infection gets worse and, finally, a short course of antibiotics is prescribed. However, the infection is still not fully cleared, so the loop starts again. The infection then becomes embedded in the bladder wall and chronic UTI develops.

Short-term antibiotic courses often do not treat chronic UTIs, because dormant populations of bacteria exist within the bladder wall. Your life revolves around desperately trying to convince doctors to prescribe a course that you know will work for you. I am due to move house soon and I am petrified of having to move GPs, which would mean again starting this battle of trying to convince a GP to take me seriously. I understand concerns around antibiotic resistance and the medical hesitancy in prescribing longer courses of antibiotics. However, the solution is not to minimise antibiotic use; it is to get the diagnosis right, treat thoroughly, recognise the existence of chronic UTIs and prevent their development.

I am concerned by the lack of research and guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic UTIs. We could prevent them all together if we get things right. I am particularly excited by the UTI vaccine, which is not currently available in the UK. Prevention of UTIs would not only save the NHS countless hours and money, but save people from living miserable lives.

In April, the Minister for Care said in a response to a written question:

“there are no current plans to train GPs and urologists on recognising the symptoms of chronic UTIs”.

Also, current NICE guidelines do not contain guidance for chronic UTIs. This situation must change. Too many women are being left in unbearable pain without a proper diagnosis or appropriate medication.

I will be very quick now, Sir Desmond; you have been very patient with me. About 50% of all antibiotics are prescribed for UTIs. However, each year there are thousands of deaths from UTIs and approximately 200,000 A&E admissions are due to UTI-related illnesses. The cost of UTIs to the NHS, as well as to people’s lives, is huge.

This issue is personal for me. It is also personal for the millions living with the pain, frustration and isolation of chronic UTIs. Will the Minister meet me and others, including campaigners, to discuss how we can improve diagnostic tools, develop guidance and ensure that people suffering from this condition receive the care that they deserve?

Thank you for your indulgence, Sir Desmond.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on his presentation of this debate on subject matter that some, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), have personal experience of. Others, including me, have staff members who have had this condition, and some have family members who have had it—I understand that my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) has experienced that.

This is an opportunity to speak on behalf of sufferers in my constituency of Strangford and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The NHS estimates that some 14 million people in the UK experience some form of urinary incontinence. That figure is expected to rise because of an ageing population with often very complex health issues. That is a fact of life. Those of a certain age—I am one of them—find that their health issues are multiple. That is the nature of age; it takes its toll.

Inadequate continence care can lead to serious complications, with urinary tract infections among the most common and concerning outcomes. NHS data showed that there were more than 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. The majority involved patients aged 65 or older. The admissions include both those directly caused by UTIs and those for other reasons but where a UTI was also present. As a leading cause of emergency admissions, UTIs place substantial strain on NHS resources, while diminishing patients’ dignity, experiences and outcomes.

I wish to highlight that this issue affects both men and women, as well as children. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to a three-year-old girl, so children are affected by chronic UTIs. A member of my office staff, one of our young girls, came to work with me when she was 16. She has been there for a long time, so I must be doing something right; she has not left me to go elsewhere where the money is better. Perhaps the conditions and the time off are better as well.

I understood the chronic pain that my staff member had, but also the need to be flexible at times—whenever she was not well, she obviously needed time off. She attended a fair few hospital appointments for a chronic UTI, and it was a very difficult time. She was on antibiotics for six months. I wondered, “Is that possible?” But in this case it was, because the infection was so chronic. Ultimately it cleared. Also, on 1 January this year she got married, so her life is going in the right direction now—thank goodness for that. The issue was exacerbated at the time by the difficulty of getting GP appointments and specialist referrals. The chronic pain just seemed to exist forever, even with the help of antibiotics. Eventually she got to the end of that six-month period and she is now in much better health.

I want to mention what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because obviously that will be part of any debate in which I speak. In Northern Ireland we have something, and perhaps the Minister will say to me in a few minutes, once I tell her what it is about, “Well, we’re already doing that.” If they are, that is good. I was very relieved when Northern Ireland rolled out the Pharmacy First scheme, especially as the scheme covers advice and treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in the local pharmacy, so without having to wait for a GP appointment. If the Minister tells me that the Government have not done that yet, can I say that it is another Northern Ireland first? And if the Minister is not aware of it, may I say, to be helpful in this debate, that perhaps it should be done here as well?

The pharmacist may test the patient’s urine to help to determine whether a UTI is present. How does the scheme work? What happens when a person goes to their local pharmacy in Northern Ireland? In some cases, self-care advice may be all that is necessary. In other words, they will get a bit of advice. The pharmacist will find out what the symptoms are and explain the situation to the person, and perhaps will be able to respond fairly quickly. As I said, in some cases self-care advice may be all that is necessary, but the community pharmacist is also able to supply the patient with medicines to relieve pain—in some cases there can be chronic pain—and, if applicable, antibiotics. In all cases, women will be advised on what to do if their symptoms worsen or do not resolve.

The Pharmacy First UTI service means that women can be assessed and treated much sooner, without having to wait for a GP appointment—like the young girl in my office—for a month, two months, six weeks or whatever the case may be. Not only will patients not need an appointment, but community pharmacies are more likely to be open after normal working hours, at weekends and on bank holidays. Newtownards, my major town, has a number of pharmacies, which take turns staying open at the weekend; there is always access to a pharmacy in Newtownards and, indeed, other major towns in the Province.

The UTI management service expanded to more than 400 community pharmacies in 2024-25, following positive evaluation of the pilot, which involved 60 pharmacies and started in July 2021. That success convinced the Northern Ireland Department of Health to make the pilot bigger and showed that we could do more. Between March 2022 and April 2023, 3,500 women in Northern Ireland used the pilot service. Following assessment, more than 85% were diagnosed with a UTI and received appropriate advice and treatment from a pharmacist.

That is positive, but for those with chronic UTIs, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, the pharmacy does not cut it and the GP can only do so much. There are different levels of response: community pharmacies in Northern Ireland provide an automatic response to those who have a urinary infection, rather than a chronic UTI, but sometimes things are much more complicated.

The waiting list to be seen for a UTI in Northern Ireland is long, and the average waiting time for urology appointments varies significantly, depending on the health and social care trust and the urgency of the case. For example, in the Belfast health and social care trust, the wait in a red flag case—the most urgent—might be nine weeks, which is more than two months and far too long; a non-urgent case could wait 76 weeks, and a routine case could wait 180 weeks. Those are horrendous and completely unacceptable waiting times.

Throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there needs to be access to specialised care, innovation, new and modern technology, and new ideas, rather than a six-month course of antibiotics and a hope for the best. Men, women and children need more, and it must be provided.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. She responded positively to last week’s debate, and I am sure that today she will again indicate her wish to make lives better. This debate gives her the opportunity to do so, and to help those who have been waiting so long for an end to their health issue. We can do better—and we must.

GP Services: Christchurch

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to GP services in Christchurch.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This short debate was triggered by the perverse decision, announced last week, of the Dorset integrated care board to refuse permission for Burton surgery to reopen. The surgery is a premises in Burton village in Christchurch constituency, which has had a GP surgery for more than 30 years. The surgery was converted from a guest house. It has good car parking nearby and a pharmacy adjoining it, and is a well-loved community facility.

In 2007, the GP practice in Burton was amalgamated with Christchurch medical practice and became a branch of that practice. Then, in December 2023, patients were told that the Burton premises would be closed and all patients transferred to Christchurch medical practice in Purewell. I wrote to the integrated care board to express my concern at the impact that would have on the people of Burton. Although the ICB said that it was powerless to intervene because the surgery was only a branch, local residents were confident that another GP practice would acquire the premises and continue to provide GP services, because the building is in really good order: it has 11 consulting rooms and is a very attractive proposition for another GP practice. It was expected that it would be put on the open market for sale.

Much to everybody’s frustration, that did not happen. The owners of the practice decided instead to do a closed deal with a veterinary hospital based in Christchurch, which agreed to acquire the site, thereby excluding the possibility of another GP practice taking it over. However, one thing they had not thought about was that they needed to get planning permission for a change of use. The planning application was strongly opposed by local residents, backed by me, and it became a major issue in the general election campaign. Eventually, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council refused the application on a series of grounds, the principal one being that

“insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of a community facility at this site would not result in a substantial decline in the range and quality of facilities and services available for local people.”

In essence, the local planners said that it was necessary to keep the surgery in Burton because removing it would take away an important community facility. If nobody else was willing to open such a community facility, I would not have been able to put forward this argument, but another practice has now purchased the premises and is willing and ready to open a branch in them. However, in order so to do, it had to apply to the integrated care board for permission. It did just that last November. Extraordinarily, it took months before a decision was reached—so long that I raised the issue in an oral question. The Secretary of State himself took it on board and, as a result, the ICB was pushed into having to make a decision on 23 April. As I understand it, the decision was made on 23 April, but was not communicated until some time afterwards.

In the meantime, and in anticipation that the application to reopen the branch was essentially a formality, South Coast Medical completed the purchase of the building and started the refurbishment. The plan was that it would reopen this summer. The ICB’s decision to refuse permission for the branch surgery to reopen is, in my view and that of my constituents and local residents, beyond belief. I appeal to the Minister to intervene on behalf of the 4,500 patients whom the ICB accepts would choose to re-register at Burton were the surgery to reopen.

Ironically, it is said that the cost of re-registering those 4,500 patients would be a significant burden on the health service. That is because people who are in their first year with a GP are thought to be more burdensome, so the GP gets paid a slightly larger amount for each of them. To describe the exercise of patient choice in that way—as a burden on the NHS—seems to me to be pretty wide of the mark.

After I heard the outcome of the application, I tabled a series of questions, one of which sought to establish how many people have been transferring from one practice to another in Christchurch each year, because I wanted to get a feel for that. The answer, from the Minister for Care, stated that the information is not available.

Some of the arguments made in favour of not allowing the surgery to be reopened, in answer to another of my questions, were based on the number of appointments already taking place in Christchurch. That prompted me to table a named day question on that subject. At about 9.30 am this morning I received a holding response, saying that the information relating to the number of appointments at surgeries in Christchurch over the past couple of years is not available, yet the ICB says that it used that very information to help it reach its conclusion. I hope the Minister will explain why the ICB, which I think is basically the custodian of all this information, so far has not decided to share that information with Ministers. Either it has the information or it has not been wholly open in suggesting that the information helped in its decision.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not just at the moment, but I may do later.

This whole issue is a test case for the credibility of the new Labour Government’s promises about increasing access to GP services. In August 2024, after the general election, no one in government or in the NHS, including Dorset ICB, was suggesting that a GP surgery in Burton was not needed. Now that a serious plan to reopen the surgery is in place, without any capital cost to the NHS because South Coast Medical has acquired the premises using its own resources and does not need a grant, it is surely perverse that the ICB is arguing that such a branch surgery can no longer be afforded and that reopening it would adversely affect the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch.

I tabled questions on that issue as well. There is no evidence that other practices in Christchurch would be adversely affected, and I challenge the Minister to share with me, the House and my constituents the evidence that has been used to reach this decision. Will she also explain what can be done to appeal against the decision? It has been handed down by an unelected and unaccountable quango, or arm’s length body, which, among other things, has said to me in a letter that there have been no complaints about the quality of service being provided by the other main practice in Christchurch, which was operating the Burton branch and chose to give it up. However, there have been many complaints; I have fistful of them here, some of which I may refer to. Either the ICB does not open its post, or it is closing its eyes and ears to representations about issues relating to the availability of doctors, the importance of patient choice and the inconvenience of having to travel so far in a community that is not well served by public transport and where taxis are very expensive. If somebody is dissatisfied with the quality of service being provided by their general practitioner, they may wish to exercise their choice, and it is good to have some healthy competition, but all that seems to be being squeezed out by the integrated care board.

I will quote from a letter from Helen Yonwin, who writes: “Since the surgery closed last year in Burton and patients were transferred elsewhere, trying to get an appointment has been a nightmare. They seem to be unable to cope with the extra patients. The telephones are not always answered and it can take over 30 minutes to eventually get a response, only to discover that you are number 20-something in the queue. After a long wait to be told there are no available appointments, so ring again the next day, there are still no appointments, ‘But you can receive a telephone consultation from a GP’—but the next available slot is in four weeks’ time.”

That is not improving access to GP services, which is what the Government pledged. It is a levelling down and reduction in service. I hope the Minister will say that it is intolerable and unacceptable, and that for it to be condoned, if not supported, by the ICB is appalling.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will just finish quoting from this letter: “If you are lucky enough to get an appointment, the next problem is getting there. Many people don’t drive or have a car, public transport is not easy for those with mobility issues, and taxis are expensive. If you do drive, another problem arises because parking is very limited.” It continues: “I cannot understand how it was stated that no complaints have been made. I and many others, in emails sent to the ICB, mentioned several issues, but I doubt any were noted.” That is a letter from one constituent; there are lots of others.

A new housing development has been approved in the locality of Burton; with some 700 new houses, there will inevitably be increased demand for GP services. Indeed, the developer, or the owner of the land, has already approached a surgery to see whether it would open a branch on the new estate. That will not be necessary if the branch to which I have referred is reopened.

I will quote from another letter. I will not give the person’s name because it refers to their condition, but she has multiple sclerosis. She says: “It’s so hard for me to get to the Purewell surgery even if you can get an appointment…I fell nearly two years ago, and I still haven’t had a proper appointment to see a doctor to see what’s causing my pain.” She says that she wants to have a choice.

Another person wrote: “I previously lived in Stour surgery’s catchment”—that is another surgery within the Christchurch constituency—“and they were amazing. I couldn’t fault them one bit. I then moved to Burton and was forced into this alternative provision.” She says that it is a nightmare to get hold of and that we should have a right to choose who we want as our GP. She also says, “Every time I’ve had an appointment, it’s been running 30 to 45 minutes late.” Reopening the local branch surgery would resolve those problems.

I hope that I have given a flavour of the strength of local feeling on this fraught issue. Somebody else wrote to me that not everybody wishes to complain publicly about the lack of service available from providers in the Christchurch medical practice, because they are worried about the consequences for them. I think that such concerns are irrational, but they are understandable.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaign on this issue. It is what we expect from him, because he is very assiduous and very committed to his constituents. He has clearly laid out the issue. Does he feel that the main reason for the ICB’s not pursuing the case is finance? If it is, even with the proposed new housing, perhaps the Minister needs to look at the case personally to ensure that it is not being held back by anything that the Government are doing at this moment in time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the issue of finances. I tabled a written question about how much the health service has been spending on general practice in the Christchurch constituency. Again, rather surprisingly, the information is available only for the year ending 2023, so we do not have any information for 2023–24. Although I would not expect the figures for 2024–25 to be available, I certainly would have expected the total costs for 2023–24 to be available by now. The answer says that in 2022–23, some £17.5 million was spent on providing GP services in Christchurch.

The idea that the cost of transferring patients from one practice to another should be a decisive factor against the reopening of a branch seems extraordinary. It makes a nonsense of the argument that we must rein in our expenditure. While we are talking about the ICB’s expenditure, for the last several years I have been complaining that, at any given time in Dorset, under the ICB’s supervision, there are some 250 patients in Dorset hospitals who have no need to “reside”, as it is called. In other words, those people are in hospital but do not need to be there. Every day, that is 250 patients at a cost of between £500 and £1,000 each.

The same body is presiding over that scandal. It said last year that it was going to halve the number, but it has failed to do so—indeed, the number is just the same as a year ago. Instead of taking it out on the people of Christchurch and saying, “You can’t have access to a reopened branch surgery,” it should be looking at its own poor performance. As I have said to the Minister informally, the idea that Dorset ICB will somehow be amalgamated with other ICBs—creating even more bureaucracy, and making it even more remote from the people—is, again, farcical.

My final point—I want to give the Minister time to respond—is that, in answer to a written question, the Minister for Care said that as a result of what has happened in the last year, the number of patients in Highcliffe has increased by about 150. In Christchurch medical practice, the total number of patients has actually fallen; in the Stour surgery, it has increased; and in the Grove, it is about the same. To suggest, on those figures, that the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch will be threatened if this branch surgery is reopened seems to be without any justification. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, although I note that the Minister for Care is not responding to the debate.

NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and her service in that role. She is absolutely right to highlight not just the people who come forward, but the people who run that local infrastructure. As I said in my opening remarks, much of this work is done at a local level. The learning we must take from what the national scheme did is how we bring that together in a crisis. We want to make sure that the learning is spread across the country and that we can use digital technology and a portal, where that suits the many people coming forward. She is absolutely right about local infrastructure and people to make sure things happen. They are best placed to know where the service gaps are and where the people are who can support them. They provide an important link. We will make sure that that is part of our 10-year plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. The importance of the work of the voluntary sector in the NHS cannot ever be overstated, whether it is those who volunteer to help people find their way around the hospital maze, those who provide vital phone support and work within communities or the volunteers in hospital radio. It is a huge loss, and the question is clear: who will replace these volunteers and the support they have given, which has made such a difference to so many at a time of vulnerability when they need it most?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We should be clear that the NHS and the care system need people. He is right about many hospitals being a maze and the importance of that friendly face to greet someone when they go into hospital. They are knowledgeable and know that most people go into hospital not for a good reason, so they recognise the anxiety people have when they enter those places. We know the cheer that is brought by hospital radio and so on.

I just gently correct the hon. Member: we are not losing the volunteers. This is a change to a contractual arrangement, so the volunteers are still there. We still want to make sure that they come forward, as we have discussed. Volunteering is more generally handled by local situations, and this is about the best way we can get the national system to spread into a local system. We need the local infrastructure, and we need to keep encouraging people to come forward. I hope that, as a result of this urgent question this afternoon, we are highlighting the role of volunteers and that more people will come forward.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As he has heard many times from this Dispatch Box, we want to see a shift in the centre of gravity in the NHS out of hospitals and into the community as one of the three key shifts that will underpin our 10-year plan for health, which we will be publishing in the not-too-distant future.

The Mental Health Act is designed to keep patients and the public safe, but it is clear to anyone who has seen how patients are treated that it does so in an outdated and blunt way that is unfit for the modern age. It is too easy for someone under the Act to lose all sense of agency, rights and respect. It is sometimes necessary to detain and treat patients, but there is no reason why patients experiencing serious mental illness should be denied the choice and agency they would rightly expect in physical care. Not only should the health service treat all its patients with dignity and respect anyway, but giving people a say over their own care means that their treatment is more likely to be successful. In the foreword to his independent review, Sir Simon Wessely said:

“I often heard from those who told me, looking back, that they realise that compulsory treatment was necessary, even life-saving, but then went on to say ‘why did it need to be given in the way it was?’”

Another patient in the 2018 review said:

“I felt a lot of things were done to me rather than with me”.

We need to get this right. We need to give these patients a voice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Secretary of State for bringing this Bill before the House. On all occasions when I have inquired of him, he has been keen to share ideas and thoughts on legislation in relation to Northern Ireland. On mental ill health, deprivation and poverty, the figures for Northern Ireland are some of the highest in the United Kingdom, which worries me as the MP with responsibility for my constituents back home in Strangford. I know he will, but will the Secretary of State share all the ideas in the Bill with Mike Nesbitt—the Health Minister back home—so that Northern Ireland can also benefit?

[Wes Streeting]

I am happy to reaffirm that we have a really strong working relationship with Minister Mike Nesbitt and the Northern Ireland Executive, and we are keen to share insight wherever we can.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which refers back to the remarks I made about the limitations of the legislation. Reform of the statute book is important in terms of how the law treats people. But as well as reforming the model of care, clinical pathways and looking at new treatments, innovations and technologies, we also need to focus on prevention, attacking the social determinants of ill health, including mental ill health, of which poverty is a key driver of stress, anxiety, depression and worse. That is why the Government will keep such a focus not just in our 10-year plan for health, but more broadly across public policy.

The current legislation has left many people with a learning disability and many autistic people in mental health hospitals, when they could receive much better care elsewhere. Around four in 10 people with a learning disability or autism could be cared for in the community. The Bill aims to improve the care and treatment people receive when detained, while keeping patients and the public safe. Through the Bill, we are: strengthening and clarifying the criteria for detention and community treatment orders to better support clinicians in their decision-making; introducing increased scrutiny and oversight for compulsory detention and treatment; and providing patients with a clear road to recovery by introducing statutory care and treatment plans for all patients detained under the Act, except if under a very short-term section.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a contribution. I shall begin by saying that it is essential that we get this right. In his introduction, the Secretary of State outlined his case very well, and I welcome his policy, his strategy and his legal way forward here in Westminster. I also believe that that will set a trend for the rest of the regions of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and particularly for Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has direct contact every month with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, and that a very constructive dialogue takes place between the Secretary of State here and the Minister back home. Hopefully, this will allow all the regions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to mental health support and obligations. The Minister and the Labour Government have set a strategy in place that I welcome.

Mental health has increasingly, and rightly, come to the forefront of our minds. We are now taking it on board and teaching our children coping mechanisms from their early school days, for example with teachers practising breathing exercises with children and helping and guiding teenagers through exam situations. Those things are happening already; we have come forward in leaps and bounds. However, this is not a sprint. This is a generational marathon, and we are struggling to make the mile markers. That is why I welcome the whole premise and thrust of the Bill.

The “Mental Health in Northern Ireland Fundamental Facts 2023” report was launched around 18 months ago, and it contained some interesting stats to consider. The wide-ranging report shows that 30% of people in the most deprived areas are likely to have a probable mental illness, compared with 20% in the least deprived areas, and that poverty, particularly child poverty, is a key contributor. It also shows that 24% of children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty. Stable housing is also a key driver of wellbeing, and almost 70% of people experiencing homelessness have a diagnosed mental health condition. In my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier, I welcomed his agreement to share the Bill and its recommendations with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, because I believe that its constructive, helpful recommendations will help us to achieve some of the aspirations and policies of the Government and the Minister here.

The report also highlights the association between poor mental health outcomes and adverse childhood experiences, with 47.5% of young people aged 11 to 19 experiencing at least one adverse childhood experience. Young people in the least deprived areas are more likely to experience no ACEs compared with those in the most deprived areas. One in five adults and one in eight children in Northern Ireland have a probable mental illness, according to the report, with rates in adults similar to other regions. However, our history of conflict and some 30 years of a terrorist campaign—with terrorists murdering and the IRA trying to kill Unionists and those who objected to their way of life—have repercussions and contribute to more complex mental health difficulties in the population.

This is a snapshot of any, and indeed all, of the regions in the United Kingdom. We are all facing the same difficulties and we all need a more effective solution and support for individuals and families. I have had many anxious parents whose children have been referred to child and adolescent mental health services. The waiting list in Northern Ireland has approximately 2,100 total waits for a CAMHS assessment, with 1,104—over half of that number—waiting for more than nine weeks. These are children who may be self-harming or have OCD and whose bodies are feeling the effects of obsessive hand washing when stressed. These are just some of the things that young people have to deal with. There are so many things that affect their education.

This is why I welcome the aims of new section 125A, which provides for the making of arrangements for ensuring that care, education and treatment review meetings take place for children. Education, hope and a future are essential and I welcome this aim. It is all about giving hope, and I think every one of us, as an elected representative, wants to give hope to our constituents—to the parents and to the children—of a better future. That is why we welcome this positive Bill.

I gently question whether the Bill goes far enough in its legal obligations for children’s reviews on education and health. I look to the Minister for his opinion on whether more should be done to ensure that children and vulnerable adults have a pathway to education and a better health programme, and therefore hope and a better future. We must not have a postcode lottery. Indeed, children and vulnerable adults in each region deserve the same rights and deserve dedication and services. I hope that while this Bill applies only in England and Wales, it will make changes for the good of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and will put in stone—I use that political term—a focus that all can benefit from. The Minister and the Secretary of State gave me a commitment in my intervention. I look forward to the Minister continuing his positive thoughts on how we can all gain because tonight is one of them good nights in this House.

World Asthma Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World Asthma Day.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. We had a very productive parliamentary visit to Egypt to promote freedom of religious belief. I commend you for that publicly today in the Chamber.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting this debate. I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in her place. I will come to my request to her later. My speech has been given to her staff and, I understand, to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

I am pleased and privileged to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. I have a deep interest in respiratory health. It is probably because my second son was born with asthma. From a very early age, he was on medication. He had some psoriasis as well; there is an association between the two. He seems by and large to have grown out of it, but even now, at the age of 34, he depends upon the inhaler. Therefore, I have a personal interest in the issue, as most people do when they talk about asthma.

I am delighted to sponsor the debate for this year’s World Asthma Day, which was on 6 May. This year’s theme, set by the Global Initiative for Asthma, is “Make inhaled treatments accessible for all”. GINA emphasises the need to ensure that everyone, regardless of their global location or socioeconomic status, has access to the inhaled medications that they need to control the underlying disease and to treat asthma attacks. I will be looking at that and other aspects of asthma care and treatment today. It is a pleasure to do so, and to see other Members who have been able to turn up to participate in the debate.

This may be my first occasion where the Minister has responded specifically to my debate. I wish her well in her role, I wish her well personally—she knows that—and I wish her well in the debate.

I am indebted to Asthma + Lung UK for its outstanding help and ongoing support. It has been enormously helpful to me and to the APPG. I welcome the work it does to serve the needs of people living with respiratory ill health. I also put on record my special thanks to Jonathan Fuld, the national clinical director for respiratory disease in England, for his expert advice, counsel and wisdom. I pay tribute to our expert stakeholder groups, which comprise senior clinicians, industry, professional bodies and other experts, for their ongoing work. The APPG has regular Zoom meetings, and Jonathan Fuld is always there to guide us and help us through the process.

The APPG has welcomed the improvements in inhaler technology, specifically the move to combination inhalers, which will ultimately eliminate the use of twin inhalers. That is a significant step and one that we should welcome. As highlighted in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence asthma guideline and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in its safety warning, SABAs—short-acting beta 2 agonists—should not be used by people with a diagnosis of asthma. Therefore, there are and will always be treatments that we need to be careful with for safety reasons. Combination inhalers combine two kinds of medicine in one device, helping to keep inflammation in the lungs at bay while giving relief from symptoms such as breathlessness and tight chest.

I will come on to some figures later on, as we need to be reminded in this debate that, with asthma, it is not just that the inhaler saves someone and they are okay. There have been a number of deaths, which I will refer to later on.

The availability of inhalers in the UK ensures that people with asthma get the most clinically effective treatment and also allows the NHS to take a step towards its net zero targets, given that they are low carbon. It is therefore right to acknowledge that the first inhaled respiratory medicine using next-generation propellant with near-zero global warming potential was approved this week. That is a step in the right direction. Although it is for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the technology offers great promise for other inhalers in the future.

It is wonderful to look back at all the advances made over the years in cancer treatments, or on diabetes or cardiovascular disease. They are trying to find a cure for dementia and for Alzheimer’s, and there are some ideas for how that could be progressed, so there have been advances.

I am sure we have all seen the latest statistics on respiratory conditions and asthma—I will touch on them briefly. Lung conditions are the third biggest killer in the UK. Hospitalisations have doubled in the last 20 years and there has been little improvement over that time. I mentioned some of the improvements with inhalers, but there is still a long way to go.

Some 7.2 million people in the UK live with asthma; 2 million children live with asthma. That represents one in nine adults and one in eight children. The UK has a higher death rate due to respiratory illnesses than the OECD average, and we have the highest death rate in Europe. Asthma kills four people in the UK every day and someone has a potentially life-threatening asthma attack every 10 seconds. These are the stats, but they are not just stats—they are families and individuals, and people who deal with this every day. The children and the parents worry, the adults worry and the families worry.

Over the past 10 years, more than 12,000 people have died from asthma. Almost all of those deaths were preventable. The National Review of Asthma Deaths report, “Why asthma still kills”, published by the Royal College of Physicians in 2014, found that two thirds of asthma deaths were preventable. If they are preventable, why can we not do more and make that happen? That is one of my requests to the Minister.

Some 66% of people are not getting an appointment with a GP or an asthma nurse within the recommended 48 hours after an emergency admission. Between 2012 and 2020, deaths from asthma have increased by 26%. The number of people who have died due to asthma attacks is very cruel.

The costs to the country associated with asthma are substantial. Asthma and COPD cost the NHS some £9.6 billion in direct costs each year, representing 3.4% of total NHS expenditure, and they cause wider reductions in productivity due to illness and premature deaths, totalling £4.2 billion a year, with an overall impact of £13.8 billion on the economy. In my country, my region of Northern Ireland, asthma costs £178 million a year alone. These costs cannot be ignored.

I will put forward some ideas that the Government and the Minister can hopefully take on board to reduce the expenditure and the death toll. Adding up the cost to the NHS and direct costs from the loss of productivity and the monetary value of people suffering lung conditions, the cost to the UK economy is some £188 billion a year. The annual estimated cost of asthma and COPD to the NHS is £4.9 billion, with an estimated 12.7 million lost workdays per year. There is a financial cost, a loss of workdays and a cost to the productivity of our nation.

The impact of asthma on the NHS is considerable. Respiratory conditions are a major cause of avoidable hospital admissions. If we can avoid hospital admissions, that is a strategy and a way forward. There were some 56,853 admissions due to asthma in 2022-23. Waiting lists for respiratory care have risen by 263% over the past 10 years. Those are worrying figures. There is a need to have this debate, and today is the opportunity to do that and to look forward.

Lung conditions, including COPD, asthma and respiratory infections, place a huge burden on the NHS, especially in the winter months, when it is always worse: respiratory admissions increase by some 80%. Breathing issues are the leading cause of all emergency admissions in England, and in common with other respiratory illnesses, asthma is hit hard by inequalities and deprivation.

There is a link between poverty and asthma, so I hope that the Minister can give some encouragement in relation to that. The burden of respiratory disease disproportionately affects the most deprived. Those from the poorest communities are three times more likely to die from asthma, compared with those in the richest—that is another worrying trend. Children living in the most deprived 10% of areas are four times more likely to require emergency admission to hospital due to asthma than those living in the least deprived areas. Again, there is a clear statistical difference between those who live in deprived areas and those who do not.

The findings of the national child mortality database report on child deaths expose the inextricable link between poor lung health and deprivation, with more than half—56%—of the children who died in the period that the report covers coming from the poorest communities. I know that when the NHS was set up, this would not have been the policy of the Government, but if there are more deaths among children who just happen to live in deprived areas, we really need to address that.

I welcome and support the Government’s commitment to reducing inequalities and deprivation—in particular, inequitable asthma outcomes. We hope to run local meetings in the most deprived areas of the country to try to determine some of the causes of the variation in asthma outcomes. I would like to offer the Minister our support in any way that we can help. We are pleased to have here today representatives who carry out the admin for the APPG on respiratory health. We thank both of them, and others, for their contributions.

There have been some welcome developments in respiratory health recently, including the introduction of a new integrated guideline for asthma, which was a joint collaboration by NICE, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the British Thoracic Society. It is being rolled out across the country. They are good steps in the right direction to try to do even better, but I urge the Minister to make sure that there is no implementation hesitancy across the integrated care boards, with uneven take-up. I also ask what steps she will take to ensure that it is rolled out equally across the country. That is one of our requests.

The APPG also welcomes and supports the three shifts announced by the Secretary of State: analogue to digital, hospital to community, and treatment to prevention. I suggest that respiratory health outcomes could benefit significantly from all three of those commitments from him. I also welcome the upcoming neighbourhood health services, in principle. Although we do not know all the details yet, there is an agreement in principle for that work to happen. I ask the Minister what future she sees for the community diagnostic centres, following the transition to the abolition of NHS England?

The APPG has already sent a submission for the 10-year plan, which we hope will deliver what we all wish to see. I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing £26 billion of extra money for health. I welcome the positive stance that the Secretary of State and the Minister have taken in relation to that. However, we feel that respiratory health should be key and in the centre of the 10-year plan. I understand that that plan is likely to have cancer and cardiovascular disease plans associated with it, and I hope that respiratory health conditions will be prioritised in the same way. Could the Minister ensure that respiratory health will be prioritised in national strategies and NHS guidance, including in the 10-year plan and the life sciences sector plan, which are in development, and in future winter resilience guidance?

One major issue that we see every year in the NHS is winter pressure. We cannot deny it, and it is not anybody’s fault; it is a fact of life. Vaccines for flu and other respiratory infections are enormously helpful, of course, but ensuring that patients are on the right treatment can also contribute to reducing these pressures. The transitions from hospital to community and sickness to prevention are essential to making this happen. The question is, how best can it happen? Again, I hope that the Minister can give us some thoughts on that.

The APPG will hold a roundtable in the next few weeks to discuss how good respiratory health measures can help to ease winter pressures. It might be helpful to consider those at this time of the year, long before we get to that stage in the latter part of the year. The APPG will report its findings to the Minister directly. A previous Minister agreed to a meeting with us, and I am quite sure that the Minister today will do the same, so I ask whether we could have that in the diary.

Severe asthma affects up to 5% of people with asthma, and is associated with frequent exacerbations, hospital attendances and steroid use. Biologics have been described by leading clinicians as lifesaving for severe asthma patients, yet an Asthma + Lung UK report suggested that in June 2020 only 23% of eligible patients were receiving a biologic for their severe asthma. Those figures worry me. I understand that that was five years ago, but again I seek some positivity in relation to it.

A recent poster at the European Respiratory Society congress showed that the uptake of biologics for severe asthma is low and variable in the UK. That has to be addressed, and I seek the Minister’s thoughts on it. The national median uptake of biologics by patients with severe asthma in England between 2016 and 2023 was 16%. ICBs are not maximising the uptake, which varies widely between 2% and 29%, against a target of 50% to 60%. That does not cut the cake. Based on current regional use of biologics in England, modelling forecasts that it will take 37 years for only 50% of eligible patients to be on biologic therapy. That cannot be satisfactory. We must do better.

At present, with the existing severe asthma service specification, patients can wait years for access to these treatments. There is limited awareness of severe asthma and insufficient capacity in the system, and unnecessarily complicated multidisciplinary teams hinder timely access. This must not be ignored. We must not have a postcode lottery, with some parts of the United Kingdom providing the correct standard of asthma care and other parts falling behind.

We await the publication of the new service specification, which I hope will minimise delays for patients who really need the biologics. In other areas, such as dermatology or rheumatology, secondary care clinicians can prescribe biologic medicines to patients who fit the relevant criteria without the patient requiring assessment at tertiary level, so can secondary care prescribing be introduced for severe asthma? I have had a lot of asks of the Minister, but they are positive, constructive asks that seek to move us forward, save lives and help those with asthma.

Time is going far too fast, but the facts are clear: too many people living with lung conditions are missing out on the treatments that they desperately need to live and stay well at home. Current access is limited, patchy and being held back by workforce shortages. Severe asthma accounts for only around 4% of the total asthma population, but this is still almost 5,000 people, and they are probably the ones who will contribute the most to asthma deaths in a year. Such is the severity of their symptoms that this group is estimated to account for at least half of all expenditure on asthma—some £38 million a year.

I want to give an example of what we are doing in Northern Ireland and show what it would mean here on the mainland. I know that this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but thousands of people across Northern Ireland are missing out on key diagnostic tests because of disagreements between primary and secondary care about who should deliver the services. If, for example, fractional exhaled nitric oxide were made available to all GPs across Northern Ireland, its use could save £4 million by optimising asthma treatment. An uptake in spirometry testing in primary care to just 40% of eligible patients would result in £1.7 million in direct health service cost savings in reduced COPD exacerbations —a reduction of 1,778 hospital bed days, of which 605 would be winter bed days.

I used an example from Northern Ireland because I have access to those figures, but were we to replicate that for each healthcare trust or board in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the improvement to health and freedom from financial weight would be massive. It is not just about the money saved, or the lives saved; it is about the care of those with asthma. If we can make it better in any way through today’s debate, it will have been worth while. I look forward to everyone’s contributions. I believe that changes can and must be made. I look to the Minister to begin that process today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, I confirm that I will write to the shadow Minister on FeNO at a later date. NHS England is also piloting a digital annual asthma check.

I am sorry, Dr Huq, this is highly irregular, but I am feeling extremely unwell; I need to go and make myself okay. [Interruption.] Thank you for your forbearance, Dr Huq. Crohn’s is not something that we have debated in this Chamber; if we did, no doubt I would be the responding Minister, and I can assure you that I would be able to speak from personal expertise.

[Jim Shannon]

I used to have close contact with a guy called Simon Hamilton, who was an MLA for the constituency that I represent. He had Crohn’s disease—my knowledge of it came through him—and he was caught short many a time, if that is the way to put it.

May I ask the Minister a wee question? I asked about CDCs once NHS England is abolished—[Interruption.] I can see that she is coming to that. That is grand.

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, I will come to many of those issues.

As I was saying, NHS England is piloting a digital annual asthma check, which, if successful, will mean that fewer people miss that valuable check and will keep the monitoring of their asthma up to date.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), asked about the public health grant. The grant has been increased and local directors of public health are best placed to identify where to target resources in their communities. As I have said, the 10-year health plan will be published next month. It will cover all conditions and will consider lung health. I have talked about the stakeholder engagement that was really important in that, and I can guarantee that, with the 10-year strategic plan for the NHS, we will look right across the board at how we can make sure that all conditions get due consideration.

During our short interruption, I was able to get a little more information for the shadow Minister on FeNO. Wessex Academic Health Science Network has created a FeNO rapid uptake product delivery toolkit, which is providing downloadable tools and resources to support NHS organisations with the adoption and implementation of FeNO testing to improve outcomes. Anyone can access that toolkit, which contains case studies of best practice identified through the programme. I hope that is helpful.

On the changes to NHS England, we are abolishing NHS England in itself, but none of its functions is disappearing. We are working really closely across the Department and NHS England, as well as with our ICB colleagues, to ensure that all services are transferred in an appropriate way. The purpose of the changes is to make things as efficient and targeted as possible and to ensure that they get to the people who need them the most.

Ensuring that community diagnostic centres are supported is really important to the Government, as it is very much part of one of our three shifts: from hospital to community. Those shifts—the other two are from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital—are at the very heart of the 10-year plan.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing forward the debate. I am sure that he would agree that World Asthma Day is not just for raising awareness; it should also be a celebration of the great things that people with asthma have accomplished. I did not know this until I saw the research for this debate, but past asthmatics have included Dickens, Disraeli and Beethoven. If those examples seem archaic, I can also point to Harry Styles, Jessica Alba and David Beckham, as well as to many prominent Olympic medallists. People with asthma achieve great things. It is our job in this place to help them to reach their full potential, with a particular focus on addressing how respiratory conditions affect people in deprived communities.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all hon. Members for participating in the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) referred to the fact that someone dies every six hours—four people in a day—from asthma. He also talked about young George Coller, and the Minister kindly agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and the family. That is very positive; I would not expect anything other than positivity of the Minister, but I thank her for that. Such meetings help us to represent our constituents in a positive fashion.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), who is an asthma sufferer—I know about asthma only through my son, but the hon. Lady has lived experience—talked about how asthma affects her life, and I understand that her sister also suffers from it. She also referred to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill, which are relevant to issues that contribute to asthma. Asthma goes way outside the remit of Health Ministers alone; Ministers in other Departments have to be part of addressing it.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) always brings her knowledge to the subject matter. She referred to air pollution and the Lib Dems’ commitment to addressing that issue. She mentioned poor housing and healthier homes, and said that the increase in children’s asthma needs to be addressed. Again, lung conditions are the third biggest killer in the UK, as others have mentioned.

I have lost count of the number of debates that my friend, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I have been in together—it is like a tag team here on a Thursday afternoon—and I thank him for his personal story about asthma. He referred to the work of charities and to primary and secondary care, which the Minister referred to positively in her contribution. He mentioned smoking cessation, the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and preventable deaths. I thank him for bringing his knowledge as a doctor to add to the debate.

I thank the Minister; I think that we are all impressed by her replies. She did her utmost to answer all our questions in a positive fashion. I thank her for agreeing to the meeting, which we will look forward to. It will give the APPG a chance to talk more insightfully, if that is the way to put it, about the issues.

The commitment to asthma shines out across the nation. The Minister referred to the Government’s commitment to improving air quality, which we are all pleased about, and she referred to the national bundle of care—I hope I got that right—as well as regional funding. She also referred to spirometry diagnostic tests, which is an issue that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were trying to pursue.

The Minister also mentioned action for those with severe asthma—biologics—and the training of staff; her positive replies to our questions were an example of how other Ministers should reply. She mentioned the moves from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. She discussed ensuring, first of all, that we prevent the deaths, but also that we help those who have asthma.

It has been a positive debate. It may be a few weeks after World Asthma Day, but none the less it has been World Asthma Day for this hour or so. I thank everyone for their contributions and look forward to meeting the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered World Asthma Day.

Brain Tumours: Research and Treatment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for sharing her story and for all her endeavours in this House on behalf of her sister and others. I hope she will forgive me for saying that she has a big heart, and she expresses that in this Chamber often. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said he was afraid; I cannot believe he would be afraid of anybody, but I am sure she was not too formidable no matter what the case may be.

For any family to receive the news of a brain tumour is instantly worrying, and we think of all who have lost their lives to this dreadful illness. Just recently we mourned with a dear friend of mine whose daughter went to hospital with a suspected stroke and within two months had gone to eternity with a glioblastoma brain tumour. She gave me an image of a red squirrel in the nearby Mount Stewart estate, run by the National Trust, and that will always have pride of place in my office.

In Northern Ireland, 2,043 brain tumour cases were diagnosed between 2017 and 2021—some 409 cases per year. At the end of 2021, there were almost 5,500 people living with a brain tumour, with the diagnoses occurring between 1997 and 2021. During that period, 53.2% of brain tumour cases were among women—as in the case that I know of and in that raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

If I was to ask for one thing out of this debate today, it would be for extra money to be made available for research and to find the cures, because that is really what we want. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. In the UK, 16,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour each year, and incidence rates of brain tumours are significantly higher in Northern Ireland and Wales than in other UK countries. Brain tumour cases are projected to rise in Northern Ireland by some 36% by 2035, which is really worrying. The Minister always endeavours to give us the answers we all seek, and I ask her to work alongside the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to see how all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can work together to take on glioblastoma cancer and tumours.

Despite treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, some patients find themselves resistant to therapy and they relapse and unfortunately may face death after some 15 months. Queen’s University Belfast is making giant strides in research and repurposing existing drugs to ascertain if they can make a difference to these dreadful statistics. While it is thankful for the funding given by Brainwaves NI and other charities, the Government need to assist those charities and other groups by making funding available to the highly qualified scientists who could find a cure and have a path to take, but have been precluded from doing so due to the lack of money. The statistics are startling: more children and adults under 40 die of a brain tumour than of any other cancer, yet only 1% of national research spending goes on brain tumour research. More research and more spend could make a great difference; this must be rectified.

The difficulty is that no symptoms are unique to brain tumours. Headaches, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision or weakness of the limbs can be due to other pressure effects within the brain. A tumour can also cause seizures due to infiltrative effects on the brain substance. There are many symptoms, including deafness, visual disturbance, and problems with the sense of smell.

I want to give a wee example. My parliamentary aide had been suffering from a 10-day headache. She is the one who writes all these speeches for me every week—a very busy lady. She booked an eye test after she did some research and asked for a further intensive scan, which she paid for herself. Thankfully in a way, it turned out that her eyes had deteriorated but that the headaches were not due to anything that she had feared. There is a good point to make here: how many young people would not think to do this or would say, “I can’t afford to do that”? How much awareness is there that a headache is not always down to dehydration? How many people understand that an eye test is an essential part of our healthcare? Perhaps the Minister would consider making eye tests free at source for those who work, as well as those on benefits, to increase the number of people having an eye test who need one but just do not think about it.

In conclusion, ever conscious of time, I understand that money is not unlimited and that the Government must make effective use of funding, but when I stood at the funeral service and watched the heartbreak of my friend, I thought that there is nothing more important than stopping that heartbreak in Northern Ireland and across this great United Kingdom. Research is the key and we must find the promising research as a matter of urgency. I hope that the debate today will be a step in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about Margaret. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I appreciate that they have been taken from their constituencies, where there will be great celebrations for the 80th anniversary of VE Day.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate. I suggested to the Committee that I did not want last Thursday because it was polling day, so when I was offered 8 May, I did not really feel that I could refuse. I say to the Minister, the shadow Ministers and all hon. Members that if we rely on the system as it is, there will be no progress. The only way to bring about progress is to intervene and to challenge. To that end, I am delighted to say that in July we will be launching the first drug trial in Margaret’s memory, to try immunotherapy on people with glioblastoma. We will be doing that only on one site, at UCL and UCLH. That is because the structure of drug trials in the NHS continues to be so difficult—this was identified by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his report—that going to more sites would take years. People diagnosed with this condition have not got years, so we all have to intervene.

Most Ministers in the previous Government and those in this Government have been incredibly well organised and well motivated. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, which has made our trial possible at this speed, but unless we personally get involved, no great speeches, wishing or hoping will make a change. The system does not want change. We have to enforce change.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that Brain Tumour Awareness Month took place in March; further notes that there has been no progress in NHS treatment of brain tumours in 20 years and that they are the biggest cancer killer of people under the age of 40; calls on the Government to demand that the National Institute for Health and Care Research take action to spend the £40 million provided by the Government for brain tumour research in 2018 for innovative and meaningful drug trials, following the death of the late Baroness Tessa Jowell; and further calls on the Government to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to undertake research into the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours and to require the NHS repurposing service to consider the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to ask this, but we need to understand what is happening about the trade negotiations and the statement that may be coming. I ask because three of us here—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) and I—have planes to catch. I understand that others in the Chamber have made travel arrangements as well. If the statement is not happening, let us go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While Members are aware that a statement is expected on trade negotiations, I have no further information on the timing. His comments are now on the record. I suspend the House until further notice. The Annunciator will give further information, and bells will be rung before the House resumes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a qualified physiotherapist, and who is right to refer to the value of community care. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the important issue that she has raised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What steps will be taken to support more community pharmacies that can offer a broad range of services to people in rural areas, to ensure that those who are most isolated from busy towns still have access to those important services?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I said earlier, we are giving pharmacies a record 19% uplift to £3.1 billion, and I am pleased to confirm that of all the sectors in the NHS they received the best uplift in the 2025-26 settlement. We have also maintained the pharmacy access scheme, which provides £19 million to support pharmacies in areas where there are fewer of them, including the rural areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Parkinson’s Awareness Month

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for leading the debate with such an emphatic and detailed speech. I also thank his staff for ensuring that all my office staff had access to the most up-to-date information on our constituencies; there was something the hon. Gentleman knew about my constituency that I did not know until his staff sent me that helpful information. It helps us all to consider the issues.

Parkinson’s is a devastating condition that impacts thousands across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to be here to support this debate and to speak on this subject, which is a big issue in my constituency; more people are moving to live in my constituency, who—by and large—are of a certain generation, and because of that, are more susceptible to Parkinson’s, with other complex needs.

I want to speak specifically about PIP, which is a big issue for me and my staff; I have one staff member who does nothing else most of the time. It is always important to me to represent my constituents, and, as DUP health spokesperson, these issues are very close to my heart.

We all know someone who has Parkinson’s, whether it be a family member, a friend or someone else, and representing that is half the battle to achieve change. We have heard figures outlining the scope of this issue across our country. To give my local perspective, some 4,000 people have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s across Northern Ireland, and the majority are aged 70 to 89. In my constituency, we have 229 people suffering with Parkinson’s.

The most recognised impacts of Parkinson’s include tremors, bradykinesia, instability and stiffness. People with Parkinson’s can feel freezing cold nearly all the time, even when the rest of us feel warm. There are also many non-motor symptoms that people with Parkinson’s will face, including fatigue and cognitive changes.

I was pleased to attend Parkinson’s UK’s parliamentary drop-in earlier this month, where it was great to discuss the personal independence payment and how the changes will relate to people with Parkinson’s. I have also submitted numerous parliamentary questions on the matter, high- lighting the real scope of the issue. I have been contacted by many constituents expressing their concern for family members who have the disease. Parkinson’s UK has revealed that people suffering from the disease incur extra costs of some £7,500 per annum on average; when loss of earnings is factored in, that figure can rise to £22,000.

Personal independence payments are therefore crucial to help with the additional costs that come with this sickness. PIP is not an incentive not to work—I get really quite annoyed when I hear people saying that. People want to work, but sometimes their disabilities restrict them from doing so. PIP is not means-tested, and is unrelated to a person’s employment status.

The supposed change that has been discussed is that people will be eligible only if they score four or more points in one category, which will directly impact so many people who suffer a wide range of issues stemming from their illness. I have real concerns about the proposals that Government are looking to bring forward.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has referred to previously, people with Parkinson’s are on average 10% more likely to be inaccurately assessed for PIP at the mandatory reconsideration stage than claimants with other conditions. That is shocking. When someone with Parkinson’s makes a PIP application, the person who looks at it needs to understand the condition. My office win almost 70% of all our mandatory reconsiderations and appeals. That is not a criticism of people, by the way—it is an observation, which tells me there is something wrong with how the applications are looked at.

Clearly, there is a call for social security provisions, especially for people with Parkinson’s, which is being overlooked. I urge the Minister to look at this matter together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As always, that is meant as a constructive comment.,

I am a strong supporter of investing in research. Based at Queen’s University Belfast, Parkinson’s@NI is a collaborative hub that connects researchers, healthcare professionals and the local community. Such hubs are crucial in helping to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson’s. More funding will enable research in digital modernisation and make a pivotal mark on brain health research. There is so much work to be done. If we can all work together, we can do more to find a cure for diseases such as Parkinson’s.

For Parkinson’s Awareness Month, let us do all we can to support and progress better opportunities for people. I strongly urge the Minister to look at the issues around benefits and social security in particular. I look forward to working closely alongside colleagues across the Chamber, and Ministers, to lobby for more change and for better provision for people with Parkinson’s.