Parkinson’s Disease Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateMary Glindon
Main Page: Mary Glindon (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)Department Debates - View all Mary Glindon's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.
I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.
However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.
Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.
Sorry—I do not know that I have time to give way. Too many people want to speak.
A framework would drive faster diagnosis and treatment, boost access to multidisciplinary teams and improve secondary prevention. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a framework for neurology in the Government’s first wave of national service frameworks in 2026. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to meet Parkinson’s UK and the Neurological Alliance to discuss how the framework could help to improve patient outcomes?
On financial support, Parkinson’s comes with a significant financial cost. People with Parkinson’s spend over £7,500 a year on average just to manage their condition. However, the personal independence payment system has failed the Parkinson’s community since its creation 12 years ago. Inaccurate assessments are far too common, and too often people must bear the physical and emotional strain of the appeals process. In the previous debate, the Minister offered to relay concerns about PIP to the ministerial team and the Department for Work and Pensions. Against the backdrop of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, and now that the Timms review has been launched, will the Minister make representations in the strongest possible terms that any reform of PIP must deliver fair and accurate awards for people with Parkinson’s?