Siobhain McDonagh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jan 2025 · Rare Retinal Disease · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I will now put— [ Interruption . ]

• 23 Jan 2025 · Rare Retinal Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise again to the hon. Member for Strangford. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered innovation in the field of rare retinal disease.

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  I think my point will be unlike that of any other Member in the House. The specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is in tier 2 of these schemes. Can I say to the Secretary of State, as I have said to every Health Secretary over the past 25 years, that no one wants this? We want the services at St Helier hospital to remain at St Helier, where the people who are poorest and most ill need them. Will he look at this £500 million-pound scheme to see if it is really necessary?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week, we have spent a lot of time talking about Elon Musk and his concern about violence against, and the sexual abuse of, women. I am aware of an ongoing case in which a woman continues to be stalked by a man who has already been convicted of stalking her, and who has set up an X account in her name and is posting pornography. However, Elon Musk’s company refuses to provide the IP account address needed to increase the level of sanction against the man. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss what Mr Musk and his company can do to ensure that those guilty of harming women are properly prosecuted?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It saddens me to make this contribution. Three main aspects of the Bill are of particular concern to me: the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum; the harmonisation of teachers’ pay across academies and maintained schools; and the pathway for future failing schools. When I was elected in 1997, two of our four secondary schools were in the bottom performing 5% of schools in London, and London was the worst region in the country. Today we have three academies—Harris Academy Merton, Harris Academy Morden, and St Mark’s Academy—and I am delighted to tell the House that they are all Ofsted-rated “outstanding”. I wish to thank the principals, Julian Sparks, Aisha Samad, Hannah Fahey and their teams for all their efforts. According to Ofsted’s latest inspection report, one of the keys to the success of Harris Academy Merton is its “aspirational curriculum”—its version of our national curriculum that is flexible and tailored to pupils’ individual needs. Ofsted stated that teachers at the academy were able to carefully consider what pupils needed to learn, and the right time for pupils to revisit that knowledge. That is a proven recipe for success, not just at Harris Academy Merton but in academies across England. I struggle to see how removing the right to a carefully tailored education will benefit students who need the additional support that such an education provides. Forcing schools such as Harris academy to teach the national curriculum risks undermining one of the keys to their success. I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests. I understand that a change might be needed to ensure that failing schools are taken over by the right academy for their needs, and not by a weak academy, and there should be a list of those academies that are not up to it, but we should not put the process at risk. My contribution is born of 27 years’ experience. I have fought teaching unions and anti-academy groups, because the most important thing is the ability of children to achieve—not our aspiring to that, and saying, “That’s what we want,” but putting the structures in place that actually bring that about. Do not put that at risk.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Last summer we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the elective orthopaedic centre in south-west London. The driving force behind that was Professor Richard Field, who came to my surgery every week after the 1997 election. With the help of the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the late Health Secretary Frank Dobson, he made it real. It has the lowest blood use rate for hip and knee replacements, the shortest stays and lowest levels of infection. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Professor Richard Field and agree that his elective hubs are the way to cut waiting lists?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Biosecurity · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that should they wish to contribute to the debate they should bob.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Hospitality Sector: Eastleigh · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Member for his intervention and I am sure that the Minister will take it up in his contribution. However, at the moment the Member in charge has the floor.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Hospitality Sector: Eastleigh · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. I call Liz Jarvis to move the motion.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Treatment of Terminal Illness · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the liability of practitioners, and of the organisation which employs the practitioner, where a practitioner prescribes an unlicensed medicine to or carries out a non-standard treatment on a person who is terminally ill; to make provision about the import, storage and use of equipment and unlicensed medicines for the purpose of such prescriptions or such treatment; and for connected purposes. Advances in medical science wait for no man or woman—unless, of course, they are one of the thousands of people in the UK each year diagnosed with a rare cancer. In that case, they are likely to receive NHS treatment that has remained unchanged for more than 30 years, with no improvement in outcomes, no access to drug trials and no access to the huge progress that has been made in individualised cancer vaccines or immunotherapy. It does not have to be that way. In Germany, medical practitioners can offer experimental treatments to patients with a terminal diagnosis without fear that they, or the organisations that employ them, will be held liable or penalised. They can offer patients a lifeline that doctors in the UK are not allowed to offer. I am introducing this Bill to protect clinicians in the same way and to allow patients access to the latest medical treatments. In truth, we know this ten-minute rule Bill has no prospect of becoming law. However, it serves another purpose: to give a voice to the thousands of terminally ill patients and the ordeal they are forced to endure in search of a lifeline; to expose the culture of fear among medical professionals in the NHS surrounding individualised treatment; and to suggest a better way forward. Excuse my German pronunciation, but Individuelle Heilversuche is the German law that allows doctors to provide personalised, individual treatment plans. When a terminally ill patient has run out of traditional treatment options, medical practitioners can use treatments that have not been fully approved, or that have been approved for other purposes, as part of individual treatment programmes. They are able to prescribe drugs for off-label use—drugs that are known to save lives but are not yet available to patients with a specific condition. How can it be right not to offer the same rights to patients in the UK? Instead, the NHS—and healthcare in general—abandons them to die when the outdated and inadequate standard care fails. Understandably, many fight and take the hard choice to travel internationally—in this case, to Germany—to find the treatments denied to them in their own country. I know this path, as I walked it with my sister. I held her head as she was sick into a bin on the concourse at Heathrow airport’s terminal 5. I obscured her from flight attendants in fear that they would take her off the plane, and that we would not get to Düsseldorf. One night, I wondered how I would explain her death in a foreign city, in a country where I did not speak the language or understand the emergency care. But I would do it all again, because I wanted to extend her life and there was nothing for her here in the UK. We were lucky that we could pay for it. Thousands of people are currently following the same difficult path. For some, it is harder because they do not have the money. At a time of great distress, they are forced to sell their homes, run marathons or bake cakes to fund the treatment their loved one needs. Many are forced to travel alone because their partner cannot afford to go with them or cannot afford to take their children. Laura was diagnosed with a glioblastoma when she was just 18. A first-year student at King’s College London, she was told that she had just 12 months to live under the standard care available through the NHS. For Laura’s family, this was just not good enough. In Germany, they found an individualised treatment plan that helped Laura to live four and a half years past her diagnosis, defying the mere 12 months that oncologists in the UK had given her. Before she lost her battle with cancer, Laura completed her degree and a wonderful bucket list, including crossing the equator, presenting the weather and meeting Michelle Obama. This decision to travel overseas for highly expensive treatment is not to be taken lightly, but I ask the House the same question that Laura’s indomitable mum, Nicola, asked her oncologist, “What would you do if this was your child?” When Zoe, a 35-year-old secondary school teacher with two young sons, was diagnosed with a grade 4 cancer, she found the NHS treatment available seemed old-fashioned and out of date. Her oncologist was against trying anything different, despite telling her she had just 15 months to live. Zoe was able to access experimental treatment in Germany—treatment that research has since highlighted results in an increase in survival time. She passed away two years after her diagnosis, but critically was able to access treatment that did not affect her quality of life, something that cannot be said for the treatment that would have been available in the UK. Zoe’s husband told me: “When you are handed a death sentence, your risk appetite changes.” Zoe, along with the countless other patients who have reached out to me with a range of cancers and terminal illnesses, whose stories I wish I could share with the House, should never have had to travel for her treatment. Margaret should never have had to travel. We know that in many cases individual treatment has been proven to lead to people surviving for far longer than their original prognosis. I can say with confidence that it did so for Margaret. It provides hope that we simply do not get from our current health system. That is why I propose we extend the opportunity of individual treatment programmes to the thousands of people with a terminal diagnosis in the UK. We must end the cruel practice of forcing our most vulnerable to travel overseas to access better care, at huge expense. It is clear that legislation is needed to protect our doctors and to allow them to progress with the best standard of care. At the very least, we need to end the culture of fear among medical professionals in this country with regard to experimental and individual treatments, so that they can inform their patients of options that could lengthen their life expectancy. As Zoe’s husband said to me: “Patients do not want the fatalism that many in this field have. Realism is fine, but no-one has the right to remove hope from a patient.” This Bill would bring that hope back to thousands of people. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dame Siobhain McDonagh, Jim Shannon, Uma Kumaran, Peter Lamb, Luke Murphy, Rachael Maskell, Tonia Antoniazzi, Valerie Vaz, Mary Glindon, Sorcha Eastwood, Helena Dollimore and Natasha Irons present the Bill. Dame Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January, and to be printed (Bill 139).

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Could I ask Members to keep interventions as interventions?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I see no other Back Benchers who wish to contribute, so I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I apologise, but could the hon. Member please explain briefly what his intervention is?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call Sir John Whittingdale to move the motion, I would like to inform Members that the parliamentary digital communication team will be conducting secondary filming during this debate.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and it seems that everybody does.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Secretary of State, but I am looking at the time. I am sure hon. Members would like to hear from the Minister.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Rural Broadband · Hansard source

  More

  Order. This is Sarah Dyke’s debate, and she can conduct it as she wishes, but it seems to me that it may be more appropriate to ask for a longer debate because of the number of interventions she is accepting and the difficulty that may cause the Minister in responding.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Rural Broadband · Hansard source

  More

  I remind hon. Members that they can make speeches in this debate only with the agreement of the debate holder. Sarah Dyke will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Rural Broadband · Hansard source

  More

  Does that include Portcullis House?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Children’s Hospices: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. In my constituency, we are amazingly served by Shooting Star CHASE hospice, a children’s hospice that serves 14 London boroughs across south-west and north-west London—quite why that configuration exists, I am unsure—and boroughs and councils within Surrey. I calculate that that is around 1.5 million people. The service provides support to 544 children and their families. In essence, the funding crisis is due to the unique and specific services that that hospice provides to those children and families. No public body owns it, and those it serves are so dispersed that any integrated care board can simply ignore the tiny number of families in its area. Every social services department in those 14 London boroughs—all of them beset by the huge problems involved in looking after children—will have a tiny number of children and families, who can therefore be ignored. That is why, despite the desire to bring everything down to the most local area or unit, we would like the Minister to hear the strong argument for maintaining the ringfenced grant for children’s hospices. To bring that down to local level would be to give it to services that are already under pressure, where numbers and leverage are equally small. The breakdown in hospices and children’s hospices always has a cost. If a family cannot get support to look after a child with a life-limiting condition at home, in the end the NHS and social services will step in. I appreciate that it is difficult for Governments of all shades to look at issues in this way, but in the long term and in the round hospices save public money. They prevent family breakdown and ensure high standards of care. Few of us would argue anything but that the best place for a child with a short life is at home, supported by the wonderful professionals we have all met. I ask the Minister to support the continued central funding of children’s hospices, as well as to look at what can be done for those services with ICBs and social services departments to ensure that they are held to account for their funding and how they allocate it. Given that we have the opportunity of the 10-year plan for the NHS, is it not time to consider palliative care as part of that framework? Unlike some Members, I think there is a role for volunteers in raising funds, for instance in shops. I have seen the value of that for individuals who contribute, and I am sure that the amazing constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have all benefited greatly through what they have done to save his children’s hospice. However, hospice funding cannot be jeopardised by being left just to volunteers; the community and its Government, hand in hand, need to look after the most vulnerable children in our country.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I stand to support the Second Reading of this Bill, particularly the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. It falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill that will fulfil the hopes of the former Member for Surrey Heath to abolish section 21 evictions, which are the sole cause of crisis for homeless families right across our country. We currently have 117,450 families in temporary accommodation, including 151,630 children and—disgracefully—more than 20,000 babies under the age of one. That comes at a cost to the British taxpayer of £1.6 billion a year—all of it public money badly spent; all of it undermining the finances of local authorities of all sizes and in every part of this country. What bothers me most, however, is the families who present to me in my Mitcham and Morden constituency who are going through a section 21 eviction and know that temporary accommodation is on its way. Merton is a small south-west London borough and does not face the pressure that many others do, but those families know that they are going to be placed tens of miles away, if not hundreds of miles away, from their families and support networks.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Lady think that there is already gridlock in the county courts? As of today, a landlord who secures a possession order will wait 12 weeks to get a bailiff’s warrant. Our courts are gridlocked right now.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Local authorities have to rehouse those families in identical accommodation, only in worse repair, because there are not the same legal provisions for temporary accommodation. Children lose their places at school and their educational attainment falls, parents lose their employment, and babies die. We know through the work of Dr Laura Neilson, who works with me on the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation, that between 2019 and 2023, 55 babies in temporary accommodation—in the 21st century, in the fifth biggest economy in the world—died for the want of a cot. Members right across the House know this, because we see the families and we talk to them, but most of our friends and neighbours would be shocked to the core that these things happen in our country. I will give two examples from my last surgery. Mrs S is a nurse at St Helier hospital and Mr S works morning shifts at a local supermarket. They have three children, one of whom is non-verbal and has autism. Following a section 21 eviction from their home, they were placed 31 miles away from Merton, in Windsor—but only after they had spent eight hours in the reception of the civic centre and got their accommodation so late that when they turned up at Windsor, the estate agent was closed and they had nowhere to go. Mr S had to pay £300 for them to be in a hotel that night. Next day, when they turned up at the house, there were no beds, because nobody from the local authority—nobody from any local authority—checks the accommodation before the families move in. I say to hon. Members, “Don’t believe your local authority if they tell you they do, because they simply can’t do it.” My second example is just in case anybody thinks this issue only affects families. Mr H has dementia. When he was evicted, he was placed 8 miles away, in Croydon. That is not far, but it caused South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust to remove him from its list and he lost the support he got from the geriatrician. We are doing these things to the most vulnerable people. That keeps me awake at night, and I think it should keep all of us awake at night.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady makes the point that cancer is the biggest killer of people under 40, but glioblastoma brain tumours are the biggest killer of people under the age of 40. What progress has there been in the last 30 years in the treatment and diagnosis of glioblastoma brain tumours?