Angus MacDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great shame that this debate has been broken up along party lines. It should have been had as the debate on assisted dying was, where people from across the House could stand up and make their own case. Indeed, many Members from across the House have been supportive of what I am about to say. Following the publication of the Cass review in 2024, the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the then Secretary of State for Health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical trial settings. Polling by Whitestone Insight in ’25 showed that the public do not support a trial, with 67% of respondents agreeing that puberty blockers should never be given to under-18s, even as part of a clinical trial. That figure was 70% among parents of children under 18. Like his predecessor, the Secretary of State has declared that he is uneasy allowing this trial to proceed, and cites clinical advice and a need for scientific evidence as a cover to allow him to support it. I have worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. There were clinicians who said that the drug thalidomide was safe and clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment. There were also clinicians who assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children at the Tavistock clinic for more than a decade, with an estimated 2,000 children receiving these powerful drugs. Where are these children now? How have they got on? More importantly, I believe that as Members of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, especially children. In our induction as MPs, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. It is clear to me that allowing possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys, when we know that some of these children at least will reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth, is completely inhumane and uncivilised. Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life-changing medical research?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. I want to speak briefly about mental health charities. Fundamentally, we have an enormous problem in the UK: the public sector no longer funds the mental health sector properly, and the charities cannot fill the gap. Almost 800,000 kids in the 16 to 24-year-old group are not in education or employment, and covid has meant that the situation is effectively becoming a national emergency for the young. We all see in our casework an enormous number of parents getting in touch about their children. We have a big issue. There is one thing that the Minister could do to help. My wife’s father committed suicide. He was a farmer in Northern Ireland. Without the charities that I know of, I think a lot more people who are contemplating suicide would take their own lives. I would like to mention the charities Ewen’s Room, Lochaber Hope, and Mikeysline in Inverness. They have one particular request. Unlike VAT-registered businesses, charities cannot reclaim the VAT they pay on essential costs, from maintaining their premises to repairing vehicles. Does the Minister agree that reviewing the VAT rules for small charities could be a practical and immediate step to relieve some of the intense financial pressures facing the sector?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  A year ago in my constituency, Lewis Knox, aged 16, Fergus Ward, aged 17, and Jordan Cameron, aged 17, went off the road and died—no other car was involved. It was an enormous shock for the area. Lewis Knox’s father, Alan, is the head of the ambulance service in the area. He and his wife, Elizabeth, are calling for graduated driving licence schemes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). When I was a young lad, I drove like a complete idiot. I have four sons, and I am fairly certain that they did the same. For young men—young boys—this is a particular problem. When they drive, they show off—bravado and all that sort of thing. The statistics are horrifying. Approximately one in five new drivers are involved in an accident within their first year of driving, and drivers under the age of 24 make up 6% to 7% of licence holders but are involved in 22% of fatalities and serious injuries.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, as usual. I have met all the interested parties, apart from the Health and Safety Executive, which we will come back to. The CAA has made it clear that the new guidance does not prevent Bristow helicopters from landing in Portree. Its guidance is non-mandatory. In any case, helicopter operators can land anywhere if they carry out what is known as a dynamic risk assessment, a real-time safety judgment that allows them to land wherever conditions permit and it is deemed necessary to do so. One would think that clarification was a cover-all, but the Health and Safety Executive’s rules have led to an overly heavy-handed approach. It now treats every landing site as a shared workplace—those are the key words. It is piling on paperwork and bureaucracy. By contrast, a boggy hillside or the King George V play area in Portree are not shared workplaces, so Bristow can land at such sites. That is ridiculous; Bristow is not allowed to use a helipad, but it is allowed to land in a play area, which it does occasionally. I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a problem of health and safety over-regulation. The coastguard, Bristow Helicopters, the CAA and the Department of Transport all have a responsibility to make sure that whatever actions they take in the name of health and safety do not hinder helipad sites. I know that the CAA does not wish for its guidance to close helipads; that is why it did not make its guidance mandatory. That was also the sentiment of the family of the Derriford victim, who agreed that they did not want the CAA’s guidance to negatively impact helicopters’ being able to land and pick up people. I have a brief anecdote, which is true—a real incident in Portree recently. A woman was suffering from a suspected heart attack. An ambulance was called and took her to the bit of land adjacent to the helipad. The ambulance crew could not get a wheelchair or stretcher to take her to the helicopter. Instead, despite thinking that she was having a heart attack, she had to walk across the boggy ground to get to the helicopter. She could have taken the ambulance right to the helipad, but that was not available, so she had to walk across a very rough bit of ground—I have done that walk myself. One could not make it up.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain. I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend very much. I do not think that many people in urban Britain know how important the ambulance services are to remote and rural areas, so her point is bang-on. Had that lady in Portree had a heart attack while walking to that helicopter, would we not all be shouting at the Health and Safety Executive, asking, “Why wouldn’t you allow the use of the purpose-built helipad?” We would all be saying that. We would have had another Derriford-type inquiry, because a helicopter landed on a boggy hillside rather than on the perfect helipad on the other side of the fence. I hope that I have articulated the reason behind my application for this debate, which was to shine a light on what I consider to be a bewildering anomaly of over-regulation. I have great respect for the CAA, the coastguard, Bristow and the Department for Transport, all of which have been incredibly responsible and helpful. However, I ask the Minister to meet me in person to discuss in more detail the issue that I have raised today, so that, hopefully, we can move to a position where it is resolved once and for all.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance. I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad. Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community. What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety. In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.