Patricia Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) makes a valid point. Is my hon. Friend aware that between 2020 and 2023, more than three in four women in Scotland took up their screening invitations? However, take-up is varied based on deprivation: 64.2% of women in the most deprived areas attended, compared with 82.8% in the least deprived areas. Breast cancer survival rates reflect that; women from more deprived areas in particular are more likely to die at an earlier age, because they have not been for screening and are diagnosed late. Making screening available to people in innovative ways is important, but so too is screening people in their neighbourhoods. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the ongoing issues with Royal Mail and the concerns of many Members and constituents about the delayed delivery of hospital appointment letters and other important correspondence. The Communication Workers Union advises that the problem of delivery office staff turnover is worse in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Does he share my concern that the imminent Scottish Parliament elections bring a fresh cause for concern? Voters anxiously awaiting their polling cards and postal ballots will be understandably concerned about the possibility of being disenfranchised by any delay. Does he agree that Members of the House should be reassured by Royal Mail that it has adequate staffing to discharge its responsibilities regarding the smooth running of May’s election?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my constituent Favour Deedam and her colleagues in Unison’s migrant worker network for sharing their experiences, views and concerns about the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain. I am grateful to the many constituents in Glasgow West who have shared their histories and their concerns, and of course I am also grateful to the petitioners. One of the most important but too often undervalued roles in our society is that of the care workers—the people who look after our elderly family members and the most vulnerable people in our communities. Many of those carers are skilled, and they are often studying and achieving national vocational qualifications to equip them to do their job to the very best of their ability. In spite of their qualifications and dedication, they are just not well paid. As 31% of those employed in the health and care sector are now from overseas, it is clear that our NHS and the care sector could not function without them. As we have heard, the Government’s proposals would mean that for lower-paid workers in the public sector, the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain will increase to 15 years. I suggest that a person’s value to our country should not be measured just in terms of their salary; it should reflect their value to our society. People working in the health and care sectors should be judged on their contribution to our society. Let us remember that the people we are talking about pay taxes, pay national insurance and are often very constructive members of our communities too. Research by Unison indicates that, of the more than 3,000 people who have come to the UK recently to work in the care sector, 15% paid money to an employer for the privilege; 31% had problems with their pay not being given to them on time; and some were not paid for travel times between care visits or were penalised when they were ill. Many reported racial abuse, including verbal and physical abuse. I suggest to the Minister that a reform that we could usefully put in place for these people would be to establish a better way of granting visas to such staff. Too many have visas linked to their employment but arrive to find that there is not actually a job for them, or else the company holding their visa fails and staff find themselves in financial hardship. Often, the threat of a visa being revoked or of a worker being returned to their home country is used to stop people speaking up about poor conditions. As Unison argues, a sector-wide sponsorship scheme, run by a public sector body, would take away those fears and reduce the costs incurred when a worker moves jobs. Looking at the Government’s proposals—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Given that we reckon that some 30% of posts in the NHS and care sector are taken up by people who have come from overseas, at what point will the reforms that he referred to just now get us to the point where we can do without that 30% of people? It strikes me that, before we do anything along these lines, he needs to do an awful lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the balance can be had.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent of mine requires to renew his driving licence annually because of his age. He applied for a renewal in September 2025 and has now been told that his hospital consultant was asked for verification of his ability to drive in January 2026. Unfortunately, his consultant has not yet received such a request. Meanwhile, my constituent has lost three job offers because he does not have a valid driving licence. The Leader of the House is not unfamiliar with the issue of delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Given this particular case and what we have heard in previous weeks, I wonder whether a debate about the problem of delays at the DVLA is now appropriate.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle. The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room. In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened. Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so. The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses. Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment. The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness. We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications. I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy. Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data. In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted “the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.” Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report. When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971” to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says, “Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.” Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future. I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say. Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility. The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle. Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament. The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites. The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one. Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits. In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law. I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK. However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things that is advantageous about the Thistle is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It can refer people on to other services such as housing— many of the people being dealt with are homeless, unfortunately—and it can also address mental health issues and send people forward to the requisite services that they need to access. It can also do basic things such as allow people the opportunity to have a shower and get some clean clothes—the basic necessities that the rest of us take for granted. In that way, it does more than just address the relatively straightforward issue of injecting; it also tries to help people with the problems they experience day to day.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my regret the Scottish Government have been content to keep £1 billion of underspend rather than building 39 new health centres or 30 new primary schools, employing 23,700 nurses in our NHS, or investing money in Scottish public services and having a consequential effect on Scotland’s economy?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room. On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on. Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule. The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years. I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments. Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few. The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to make a statement on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s third report of this Session, on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow’s east end. Despite a reduction in deaths this year, Scotland continues to face the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. Without a doubt, that is the most pressing public health issue facing Scotland, and it is in that context that the Committee agreed to undertake a thorough examination of the pilot facility on Hunter Street, called the Thistle. The Committee’s inquiry follows up on excellent work conducted by our predecessor Committee on problem drug use in Scotland, and I take this opportunity to express our thanks to everyone who contributed to this inquiry, in particular Dr Saket Priyadarshi and the team at the Thistle for their continued engagement with our work. This is a challenging issue, and I express my gratitude to the members of the Scottish Affairs Committee for their thoughtful and collaborative work on this report. In 2024, some 1,017 people died from drug-related causes—a figure expected to rise in 2025—with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the Glasgow city area. The problem is not new. High levels of drug deaths have been a concern in the city for over a decade, and other harms, such as the transmission of blood-borne viruses, remain prevalent. Between 2014 and 2020, an outbreak of HIV among people who inject drugs saw 188 new diagnoses reported in the Greater Glasgow area. To address those harms, Glasgow city health and social care partnership, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and other partners launched the Thistle, the UK’s first sanctioned safer drug consumption facility. The Thistle was opened as a three-year pilot. At the Thistle, visitors can self-administer drugs in safe, hygienic conditions under medical supervision. Staff can reverse overdoses, treat wounds and provide hygienic injecting equipment. Of equal importance to the immediate medical harm reduction is the space the facility provides for expert clinicians to build trusting relationships with people whom it would otherwise be hard for support services to reach. Those relationships can be a pathway to engagement with other health and social services, such as drug treatment, counselling and housing services, which can help address the drivers of problem drug use. When we visited the facility shortly after it opened, we were particularly impressed by the expertise and dedication of the staff we met. The opening of the Thistle marks a radical change in approach to drug use in the UK, but internationally, safer drug consumption facilities are not uncommon; similar facilities already operate in 60 cities across the world. None of those facilities have ever reported an overdose death on the premises. As part of our inquiry, we visited Norway and Lisbon. We saw how safer drug consumption facilities have been a core part of Portugal’s strategy to reduce drug harms. We looked carefully at what Portugal has done, given that it has achieved a radical reduction in drug harms; it has achieved an 80% reduction in the number of drug-related deaths over the past 20 years. We also travelled to Oslo and Bergen, where we saw how facilities can be successfully integrated into local communities. Above all else, our report calls on the UK Government to adopt an evidence-based approach, and not to make up their mind about the Thistle before the trial has concluded. To that end, our report also argues that experts in the evidence, rather than those with preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future. There is no statutory basis for a safer drug consumption facility to open or operate in the UK. Instead, the Thistle has been able to open because of prosecutorial discretion applied by Scotland’s Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute users of the facility for possession offences. While the Lord Advocate’s dispensation has been crucial to enabling the Thistle to open, our Committee found that prosecutorial discretion is not a substitute for a considered legal framework. Our report also considers the cost of the Thistle. The Scottish Government have committed up to £2.3 million per year to fund the facility for the duration of the three-year pilot. Evidence to our inquiry found that facilities like the Thistle can be value for money, generating savings elsewhere. Such facilities reduce costs associated with public injecting, hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses. For example, preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. While it is right that the cost of the Thistle be properly considered, the context of Scotland’s drug crisis cannot be forgotten. The Committee argues that the scale of Scotland’s emergency—there were over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone—necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment. While the Thistle has not diverted funding from other services, we did hear concerns during our inquiry about the need to strike the right balance between investing in services like the Thistle and investing in traditional recovery services. We know that safer drug consumption facilities are not the only tool available for addressing problem drug use, and we are clear in our report that this facility is complementary to and works in tandem with traditional recovery services. In other words, it is not an either/or. Our report recognises that drug trends in Scotland are changing. The facility offers supervision for only the injection of drugs, but inhalation is becoming more prevalent and can be a safer method of consumption. The Thistle must be able to adapt to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation space is currently not possible due to both reserved and devolved legislation, and our report encourages the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government to consider any future application for an inhalation room on its merits. The Thistle opened in Glasgow’s east end—an area with long-standing issues around public injecting. Since its opening, we have heard concerns about its impact, particularly regarding drug-related litter. We know that community support is of paramount importance to the pilot’s success. That is why consultation work was undertaken about the opening of the Thistle and continues through the community engagement forum. When members of our Committee attended a community engagement forum meeting in August, they were able to see that consultation work in action, but we encourage the Thistle to go one step further and develop a more responsive communication strategy to maintain dialogue between meetings. As I said, an independent evaluation is under way to assess the facility’s impact on people who inject drugs, local residents, businesses and public services. That includes examining the service’s effectiveness, reach, costs and potential long-term savings. Community concerns must be taken seriously, but it is also important to allow time for the pilot’s local impact to be properly understood, and we await the results of that evaluation, which will provide an objective assessment of the Thistle’s impact. If the Lord Advocate continues to apply her discretion beyond the three-year pilot, the Thistle and any future facilities in Scotland could continue to operate without UK Government support, perhaps indefinitely. However, the Committee has found that the legal position of the pilot is fundamentally precarious, and the arrangement is undesirable in the longer term. We therefore conclude that if the independent evaluation deems the pilot a success and the Thistle is to be made permanent, the UK Government should ensure that there is a full legal framework for safer drug consumption facilities in Scotland. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who was then the Home Office Minister with responsibility for this area, for giving oral evidence to our inquiry. She told us that the UK Government will not introduce safer drug consumption facilities, and pointed instead to alternative ongoing interventions to address drug-related harms. While those approaches are needed, the evidence we have heard is clear that the sustained scale of Scotland’s drug death crisis demands further action. I will conclude by echoing the sentiment in the report that any intervention that is found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm deserves the Government’s serious consideration. The Committee looks forward to the Government’s response, which I hope will reflect serious consideration of our recommendations.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Residents in areas of my constituency have raised the poor postal service they have been receiving in recent weeks, which has led to their not receiving important financial information on time and missing hospital appointments. I realise that that issue is often raised with the Leader of the House, but will she join me in saying that Royal Mail and Ofcom really do need to get their act together and ensure that my constituents do not continue to receive such a second-class service?