Alex Barros-Curtis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I stand in support of new clauses 20 and 21, along with amendments 89 and 90 and 92 to 95, all of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Colleagues need not fear—I will not speak to all of them. I am a proud Welsh MP, and a lot of the debate today has centred on differences or confusion about the distinction on devolution on aspects of the Bill. Focusing on new clause 21 and consequential amendment 90, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for their work together on this issue to ensure that people in Wales can access the assisted dying process in the Welsh language, if that is their preference. In the last few months, I have met with many constituents about this Bill, including medical professionals and palliative care consultants. One of their overarching concerns is a fear that the language barrier may inadvertently impact on the ability of a relevant person in Wales properly to access and understand the assisted dying process. I am grateful to those constituents, including Dr Siwan Seaman and Professor Mark Taubert. Accordingly, new clause 21 and amendment 90 are important. They seek to replace clause 47 and provide Welsh versions of the forms for the first or second declaration, the report about the first or second assessment of a person, and the final statement. Further, they stipulate that where a relevant person informs the voluntary assisted dying commissioner that they wish to communicate in Welsh, the commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that that wish is respected and that communications by the relevant assisted dying review panel are in Welsh. These are important amendments, as they are about accessibility and respect, ensuring that language is never a barrier to compassionate end-of-life care. They uphold the principle of linguistic equality, which is well-established in public services in Wales, and I trust that that should not be controversial to colleagues when they come to vote later on. As a Welsh MP, I am pleased to see the inclusion of amendments 92, 93, 94 and 95. While they may appear to be small amendments, they are important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, they fully respect the devolution settlement by ensuring that Welsh Ministers have all necessary powers on devolved aspects of the Bill—health—while retaining the powers of UK Ministers over aspects that are not devolved. I think that was slightly misunderstood earlier by some in this debate. Taken together, the amendments provide clarity and legal certainty and offer reassurance to patients, clinicians and Government agencies in Wales. That principle should be uncontroversial. I know from my own discussions with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Health Minister that he is extremely grateful for the interactions he has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and he is confident this measure is workable from the Welsh perspective. New clause 5 seeks to mandate that the Secretary of State must, within six months, publish a report setting out the impact of this legislation on the civil procedure rules and probate proceedings. During the debate and the streams of evidence we have heard, I do not recall a suggestion that this Bill is likely to result in any serious changes to those specifically referenced matters. On the contrary, England’s CMO, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, warned against creating a “bureaucratic thicket”, saying that the best safeguards are the simplest ones. Let us keep that at the centre of our minds when we consider this legislation and avoid inserting amendments that are no doubt well-intentioned but would create such a thicket. I conclude by sharing one story from a constituent of mine who was focused very much on safeguards, which has been the debate on all these amendments and new clauses.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I want to finish up; I appreciate the hon. Member’s forbearance. That constituent was Claire O’Shea. Claire was originally diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome; it was only much later that it was realised she had stage 4 cancer. Within an hour of this House voting to pass this Bill on Second Reading, Claire messaged me to say: “What a powerful debate today. It’s hard to say I’m ‘pleased’ as it’s a terrible issue to have to contemplate. But it’s such a relief to know the next stage is open and hopefully allays the fears of those talking about safeguards.” Claire lost her battle with cancer last month, so I am pleased that we are here again, discussing the specifics of this Bill and talking about amendments in good faith that either side thinks will enhance its safeguards. In honour of Claire and for all those like her, I urge colleagues to support the amendments and new clauses I have outlined and to support the Bill itself.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow some of the speeches that we have heard so far. I rise to support new clause 11 and the package of related amendments that the Government have tabled to this landmark Bill. I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee for two reasons: first, I had the pleasure of the company of colleagues from across the House—albeit sometimes for more hours than one might care for on a Thursday evening—and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this legislation will undoubtedly save lives. On Second Reading, I talked about how the Bill will deliver on our Government’s commitment to ensuring that the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes, creating the first smokefree generation. As has been said, smoking is still the biggest cause of cancer and death. Tobacco is responsible for 160 cancer cases per day in the UK, and 3,100 cancer cases annually in Wales. New clause 11 and the associated grouping of amendments is welcome. As the Minister said, the purpose of those amendments is to ensure that, for example, the list of identity documents keeps up with innovation and accommodates the possibility of digital ID. That is to future-proof the Bill, as the Minister said. Future-proofing has been mentioned in a couple of contributions today, and it came up in Committee, too, where the Opposition in particular expressed concern about the powers that would be delegated to Ministers in order to bring into effect certain provisions of the Bill. Those powers are needed, because we need the Government of the day to be able to respond quickly and with agility to the innovation—I use that term sardonically—of the tobacco industry in finding ways around the rules that we will impose on it if the Bill proceeds. A great deal of the debate has focused on vaping, on which I will focus the remainder of my remarks. Although I recognise the value of vaping in acting as a smoking cessation tool for some, is it neither harmless nor some panacea, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, and as colleagues have said, too. There is much to welcome in the Bill in relation to vaping. The ban on the advertising of vapes, and measures to curb youth vaping and regulate the use of vapes, are examples that we welcome. However, the reality is that, as has been said, vaping among the youth has more than doubled. Action on Smoking and Health estimated that as recently as 2023, 20.5% of children aged 11 to 17 had tried vaping. That is an example of a powerful industry profiting not just from cessation but from addiction, marketing vaping at children by switching their conveyor belt of customers to a new source. Indeed, there is some alarming evidence that some vapers are not quitting smoking but simply swapping one addiction for another and many are becoming dual users. I welcome some of the contributions from colleagues, but we must be very much alive to those dangers. Throughout the passage of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s work in the realm of public health since they took office, vaping is regularly referred to as a smoking cessation tool. As has been mentioned, and as various chief medical officers from all our home nations have said, if someone smokes, vaping is much safer. Although I accept that vaping is a helpful tool in the fight for better public health, it is regrettable that we do not have for vaping the wealth of evidence over decades that underpins tobacco and the deadly consequences of smoking. We must therefore be clear on this: if someone does not smoke, they should not vape. Vaping is not harmless; it is just less harmful than smoking tobacco. Public health policy must be based on evidence and not on spin from the industry. Indeed, the power of big tobacco has been expanded on by colleagues.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I trust the Minister will expand on that when she comes to wind up the debate. As I said, public health policy must be based on evidence and not just spin or perception, so moving forward, I urge the Government to ensure that as part of their work to implement the legislation, as well as promoting vaping as a smoking cessation tool they must also undertake work to research the consequences of vaping on both the physical and mental health of the individual, its financial impact and, as was said, any regional and national inequalities that have become entrenched by vaping. When she comes back to this matter in her wind-up, will the Minister also assure me that in so doing she will work with the four home nations to ensure that that data is as thorough as possible? If that research shows, as I have no doubt it will, that vaping is significantly damaging to the nation’s health—perhaps less so than smoking, but none the less still significantly damaging—we must act to curb it. We cannot afford to wait decades and decades for that truth to come out in the way that it took decades for big tobacco to be found out. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on that point. In conclusion, I am proud to support this legislation. As has been said, there is no liberty in addiction and there is no freedom in being victim to a craving that kills. The Bill takes an unprecedented step forward to curb that damage and I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Cancer Strategies · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend outline how she is working in partnership with the Welsh Government to improve cancer and health outcomes? Could she try to help me understand why on earth, in the Welsh budget vote last week, the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against £600 million more for our Welsh NHS?

• 13 Feb 2025 · HIV Testing Week · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his speech and for securing this important debate. It is indeed an honour to take part in it, particularly during National HIV Testing Week, and to follow such excellent contributions from Members from both sides of the room. I am the Member of Parliament for Cardiff West, so it would be remiss of me not to discuss the proud role that Wales has played in responding to the AIDS epidemic and providing ongoing support to people living with HIV. Indeed, the Terrence Higgins Trust gets its name from a Welshman, who once worked in this place for our friends in Hansard . It was co-founded by another Welshman, Martyn Butler OBE, and continues to be the leading charity for supporting people in Wales who are living with HIV, all without an ounce of Welsh Government funding. Without the Terrence Higgins Trust, Wales would not have an HIV action plan and its important 30 actions; without the Terrence Higgins Trust, we would not have this National HIV Testing Week, which brings us together today. So, I pay tribute to the work that the staff and advocates of the Terrence Higgins Trust do. As has already been said in this debate, what the Prime Minister did this week has set a huge example, not just here in the UK but around the world. By taking an HIV test and destigmatising it by talking about the importance of taking it, he has used his good offices to speak to everyone in our country and around the world, taken down some of the barriers to ordering an HIV test, and let people know that these tests are available. When the Terrence Higgins Trust polled the general public, 80% of those polled were unaware that testing at home, using a kit sent through the post, was even possible. But when offered that choice against others, home testing was by far the preferred option. Thankfully, in Wales we now have the Labour-run Welsh Government, who provide at-home self-testing kits all year round. Contrast that with England, where such kits are only available nationwide for one week of the year, or, as was said earlier, authority by authority as budgets allow. Our friends at Public Health Wales are going above and beyond to get kits to people and providing charities, communities and pharmacy partners across Wales with take-home kits that people can send off to receive their results. This is a great innovation that others can learn from. Additionally, in my area GPs are going through their patient lists and texting people to offer tests to those who want them. The Welsh Government have also committed to funding Fast Track Cymru, in order to establish networks across all health boards. However, one area where Wales is falling behind England is in respect of opt-out testing. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s World Aids Day announcement of £27 million in funding, over 50 accident and emergency departments in England are routinely testing for HIV and hepatitis, and that number will rise to 90 by the summer. However, not one A&E department in Wales is yet doing that remarkable and innovative work. So, I ask the Minister if she can join me in working with the Welsh Government to endeavour to change that approach. I will finish my contribution today with a call for the Minister to unlock a UK-wide problem, namely getting PrEP available outside of sexual health clinics. In Wales, 5,157 people have been prescribed PrEP at some point since 2009, but sexual health is a bottleneck service to start PrEP. For many people, PrEP could be provided online, but for too many people in Wales it is not available online. There are rules and regulations stopping PrEP from being dispensed or even prescribed in community pharmacies. So, I ask my hon. Friend to examine this issue and to use her good offices to tear down these barriers. Otherwise, the 2030 goal will be missed.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I repeat my point, perhaps inarticulately made earlier, about new clause 6, which applies to new clause 7. If subsection (4) said “any report”, my point might not stand, but it says “the report specified in subsection (3)”. If the Bill passed and the report was for some reason laid not six months later, but nine months later, would that not mean, because of the way the new clause is drafted, that an order under clause 169(1A) could not be implemented by the Secretary of State, thereby hampering their ability to bring about some important public health legislation?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  She may well have given a few examples—I can think of a litany of examples from the previous 14 years of Tory Government. However, that would stray from the amendments, and as we do not have the time, I will not indulge the Committee with that. But I would suggest that that cynicism is not merited because, as the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown in these sittings—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention. I point the hon. Member to proposed new subsection (4), which reiterates that the Secretary of State “must consult” before any such regulations can be made. I am sure that will assuage his concerns about whoever the future Secretary of State may be, whether they are from this side of the House or, God forbid, the other side in a few decades’ time. I will point out a couple of issues about the drafting of the amendments. Although I understand the position of Opposition Members, I think the proposals inadvertently cause issues and risk causing more confusion than may have been intended. For example, does “an NHS property or hospital building” include private healthcare providers that are undertaking NHS work either on NHS premises or off-site? What about subcontractors? When the amendment mentions “a nursery, school, college or higher education premises”, are we talking about where premises have had to be vacated because of the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—crisis and where children are being taught in portacabins in a council car park, one or two miles away from the original site? These definitions are lacking and may inadvertently cause gaps in the application of the measures, if the amendments were successful. What about premises used for youth prisons? Should that be captured or not, given what was said about protecting children from the dangers of smoking? Notwithstanding the fact that I understand the intention behind the amendments and what Opposition Members have said, I think the drafting may inadvertently cause issues and undermine what the Minister has said, both here and at the Dispatch Box, about the parameters in which this set of regulations would be brought in. Those would be underscored by consultation and the commitments that have been made at the Dispatch Box. Although I appreciate and understand hon. Members’ comments, I suggest that the amendments are not necessary, for the reasons I have outlined, and I would encourage them, if the amendments are not withdrawn, perhaps to vote against them if they are pushed to a Division.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  Does there not appear to be some confusion about the motion? It clearly says that this procedural motion has to be laid before the House “for the purposes of any Act resulting from” the scrutiny and debate that is to come. If hon. Members on either side of the debate, and on either side of the House, having considered the final version of the Bill, think that it should not be agreed to for monetary reasons, will not that be the time to vote no to the Bill?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Professor Bauld, for your evidence today. Reflecting on your wealth of experience in this area and your analysis of the Bill—with comparisons to our international partners and counterparts—are there any aspects of the Bill that you think could be further improved, noting, obviously, the difference between the previous Government’s version and this version? We heard one example from the previous panel, who talked about the fixed penalty notices. Is £200 too low a number? You may want to comment on that. But, generally, on the wider parts of the Bill, is there anything you think could be improved on to deliver the public health and other benefits that we have espoused in this session?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Building on what my colleague and yourselves are talking about, specifically on vaping, I am trying to drill into your confidence levels on the flexibility in the legislation, which you have been talking about. As has been indicated—you have all talked very eloquently about it—there is not as much of an evidence base when it comes to vaping, for all the reasons you have outlined. If we think of a new car or a new product in the market, it will go through a lot of testing before it is put out there, in order to ensure it is safe. I recognise that in that regard, the genie is out of the bottle. However, the evidence underpinning vaping, as regards the integrity and safety of public health, is not as rigorous. Therefore, should the Bill not go further in terms of putting in more stringent requirements in that regard, until we have confidence in the impact on public health across all our four nations? Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is very difficult to disentangle the evidence about vaping, because so many of the people who are currently vaping are either current or ex-smokers as well. To do some form of longitudinal study that actually gets to develop the evidence base for any potential harm that is caused by vaping is difficult—although there are attempts to try to do that, such as through the Our Future Health study. At this moment, I think the provisions within the Bill represent a proportionate and reasonable approach with the flexibility that exists within it to be able to respond as new evidence develops, either towards or against the harms that are associated with vaping. I think it is proportionate in that it maintains vaping as a potential tool in the armoury to help people to stop smoking, but similarly it is proportionate in stopping the abhorrent marketing of vapes to children, which Sir Chris has already mentioned, and in allowing the position, which I think is correct, that if you have never started vaping or smoking, you should not. The proportionality of the provisions just now is heading in the right direction, but with the ability to flex as future evidence emerges.