Tim Farron MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Refugees here from Ukraine under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not eligible to indefinite leave. They have a three-year visa, which in many cases, obviously, is about to expire. They have a very short window to apply for what is only an 18-month extension. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is not long enough for Ukrainian families here to be able to plan their future, and will she reconsider?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It did.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag. Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not. My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called. We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter. I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies. That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be back talking about the Bill again. In Committee and on Report, the Liberal Democrats put down a grand total of 56 amendments. What is two more? We believe, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, that this Bill is a good thing, and we wish to see it on the statute book, but we do not feel it goes far enough, and the two amendments before us today give us the opportunity to consider it a little more. Through amendment (a) the Government want to introduce financial reporting requirements for water companies. The report, to be required once a year, should be a concise, intelligible and up-to-date overview of the financial position of each undertaker—a water company—including information on share capital and debt, and any significant changes that may have happened in the past 12 months or expected changes in the 12 months to come. We very much welcome the amendment. We tabled many similar amendments that contained aspects of those proposals, both in Committee and on Report. We are bound to say that they were better amendments—more ambitious and far reaching—but as with much of this Bill, these proposals are a decent start and we do not want to stand in their way. To clarify, we have proposed a variety of amendments to the Bill up to this point, including calling for Ofwat to be made responsible for the financial stability duty on water companies. We called for the banning of bonuses for water company bosses whose companies were performing poorly, and not just on environmental duties but on financial stability and water quality. On the Floor of the House we pushed to a vote, with the permission of the Chair, a ban on water companies making customers pay for their debt at the point of bankruptcy, and instead for investors, who have taken risks, to pay for them. That was right, and we were disappointed that the Government voted against it and the Conservatives sat on their hands and did not support bill payers. This is an important and live issue. In Westmorland in the north-west of England, 11% of bills paid only service the debt of United Utilities, yet in other parts of the country such as the areas served by Thames Water, that figure is around 35% or potentially even more. We have called for scrutiny not just of the finances of water companies but of other areas. The Bill has moved things in the right direction, but not radically enough. In Committee, we sought to encourage and persuade Labour and Conservative Front Benchers—without success—that it would be wise to have environmental experts on the boards of water companies. On the Government’s laudable and positive move towards a live database that citizen scientists can scrutinise, we asked that it also be a historical database that is searchable in retrospect. Wonderful organisations in my constituency, which are replicated around the country, such as the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Clean River Kent campaign and Save Windermere, would monitor that database, but unless they look at it 24/7 and do nothing else in their lives, some things may get past them. For example, between 2021 and 2023, 120 million litres of sewage were pumped into Windermere lake without United Utilities reporting it. We are reliant on citizen scientists knowing about this stuff, and a great database will do the job only if it is searchable in retrospect. Scrutiny and transparency on finances and environmental matters are vital. We are satisfied that amendment (a) provides increased transparency on water company finances, and therefore we will not make a nuisance of ourselves today. I turn to the second of the amendments in front of us. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) rightly highlights and reminds Members of my distaste for not having stuff in the Bill, and how statutory instruments are not the best way of doing things. Despite that, I am even more of a fan of ensuring that we in this place can properly scrutinise those who are meant to be scrutinising our water companies, namely Ofwat. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Liberal Democrats have made good, radical, environmentally minded proposals that are in the interests of our constituents and our waterways. Although the Government have understandably stuck to their guns and voted against us, the official Opposition have, oddly enough, abstained on pretty much everything—including, it would appear, on their own amendment today, for which we want to vote, notwithstanding all our reticence about not having important matters in the Bill. This amendment was proposed in the other place by my former neighbour but one—not the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who is also my former neighbour—the right hon. Lord Blencathra, a former Member for Penrith and the Border, and a very accomplished parliamentarian. In this amendment, he is seeking to require increased parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat when signing off on water company bonuses. That issue is of huge concern to me, and, I think, to most people around this country—certainly in my constituency—because record bonuses are being paid to senior executives around the country.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency. I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  May I invite the Minister, and indeed everyone here, to join us in Room M after these exchanges, when Radiotherapy UK will have a drop-in session with—most important—our patron Bryan Robson, England’s Captain Fantastic? I thank him for mentioning radiotherapy in his statement, which is crucial step forward, but may I suggest that he and the Government need to show exponentially greater ambition to get this right? The UK spends 5% of its cancer budget on radiotherapy, while the OECD average is 9%, which is why the UK is at the bottom of the survival league for so many cancers. Will the Minister commit himself to putting that right?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I am extraordinarily fond of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which he represents well. He makes an important point about travel times. In some parts of my constituency, people need to take a ferry to get from one place to another, but it is not quite as common as in his constituency. At the heart of the radical, lifesaving transformation that we need through the cancer plan must be the elevation of the unsung hero, the Cinderella of our cancer services: radiotherapy. Lord Darzi found that 30% of patients are waiting more than 31 days for radical radiotherapy. As the incidence of cancer grows, the urgent need for quicker and more efficient treatments such as radiotherapy is only increasing. As things stand, the replacement and updating of linear accelerators is left to the 52 separate cancer units in England—52 separate procurement operations, 52 different finance officers trying to balance the books and 52 different heads of service all trying to meet increasing demand, often without the time and space to look beyond the horizon. It is time, then, to centralise the commissioning of the technology to ensure a constant focus on updating and expanding radiotherapy. That would immediately start saving lives everywhere. Radiotherapy UK estimates that simply replacing all the out-of-date LINACs could free up 87,000 additional appointments every single year. Modern radiotherapy is quicker and more accurate than other treatment. It is also by far the cheapest, costing between £3,000 and £7,000 per patient—several times less expensive than equivalent cancer treatments. The Government’s £70 million commitment to radiotherapy services was welcome, but in reality, as the Minister says, that money would cover the cost of only 26 LINAC machines, fewer than half the number that are currently operating beyond their sell-by date. Erratic one-off rounds of funding do not address the need for a sustainable rolling programme of machine replacement to enable planning, support procurement and improve access for patients. Even the new machines are often old technology. What a terrible waste. In my years of campaigning on this matter, I have found that radiotherapy lacks funding and prominence. Britain therefore lags behind our neighbours, so people tragically die when they do not need to—all because of a lack of leadership and drive from the centre. On more than one occasion, I have almost seen the penny drop on the faces of Ministers of all parties when it comes to our failure on radiotherapy, but every time so far, I have seen that zeal founder on the rocks of bureaucratic sluggishness, indifference and resistance to change within the NHS. If they show the leadership that we desperately need, the Minister and the Secretary of State will have the enthusiastic and active support of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, and of the army of outstanding clinicians who are out there saving lives. Professor Mike Richards is a name that many people remember. He was the cancer tsar in the early noughties, under the previous Labour Government; he did great work and his achievements were tangible. If the Government will forgive me for using shorthand, we basically need a Mike Richards for radiotherapy, and we need them, like, yesterday. Failing that, tomorrow morning would just about do. Every day we delay, my constituents—as well as yours, Sir John, and those of the Minister and of all Members present—are dying unnecessarily. We need new technology as we plan treatments, too. Last May, £15.5 million was announced for AI technology that would save clinicians time and reduce radiotherapy waiting lists. However, we have heard from cancer units around the country that this funding may be withdrawn or diverted, which would be a hammer blow to trusts in the face of the ongoing workforce crisis. Will the Minister take the chance today to reassure our cancer units and confirm that this funding will go, as promised, to radiotherapy departments in full? I hope the Minister will also act swiftly to tackle the perversities of the tariff payments for radiotherapy, which effectively punish trusts for treating cancer patients in the most effective and modern ways. I ask the Minister to guarantee that radiotherapy will be at the centre of the NHS 10-year cancer plan, and that that plan will be led by people empowered and determined to deliver it. The technology is vital, but the people matter just as much. Our specialist and highly skilled radiotherapy workforce numbers only 6,400 people, yet the survey conducted by Radiotherapy UK shows that one in five cancer doctors may leave the profession in the next five years. We have a 15% shortage in clinical oncologists—set to rise to 21% by the end of this Parliament—and 30% of oncologist training posts were vacant last year. On top of that, 50% of clinical technologists are over 50 years old, and 84% of heads of cancer services reported that they were concerned that workforce shortages affected the quality of patient care. I ask the Minister to agree that the 10-year cancer plan will include a renewed investment in workforce and infrastructure. A 10-year vision already exists, by the way—drawn up by the experts, via Radiotherapy UK. I simply urge the Minister to consider their findings and borrow the proposals detailed by leading oncologists and cancer experts. I have asked for two separate meetings today. The first is on the need for a satellite radiotherapy unit at Kendal; the second is a first meeting for the Minister with the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, to look at the national picture. I hope he will grant me both. The radiotherapy lobby is tiny: 6,400 dedicated professionals within our health service; a compact but awesome group of charities and volunteers; a handful of companies building the technology, many of which are based in the United Kingdom; England’s captain fantastic, Bryan Robson; and a small band of MPs of all parties, seeking to be a voice not just for the radiotherapy sector, but for the thousands and thousands of people living with cancer in our country, who deserve the best treatment that we can give them. For the last generation or more, the UK has let those people down, and so often with tragic consequences. Yet radiotherapy is a cost-effective, easily deliverable technology that will save lives in every community in this country. We are way behind where we need to be, yet it would be so easy, with the right leadership from Ministers, to catch up with and go beyond our neighbours. Cancer no longer needs to be seen as a death sentence; it is a disease that can be treated and cured, but we cannot do that if our systems and practices prevent us from deploying the best treatments available. Please save lives, Minister, and become our radiotherapy champion.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a great point and does a great service to his community by standing up for those groups who support people after cancer, and their families. I know that personally in my own family, so I congratulate him on making a really important point. My second ask—the Minister should be delighted to hear that I only have two—is that he separately meets with the all-party group on radiotherapy and the leading fantastic clinicians who support us, to look at how the Government and NHS England can turn the tide on radiotherapy nationwide, because the problems of access do not just affect Westmorland; they affect the whole country. Although in Westmorland our issue is unacceptable distance from services, the problem across the country is that we lack sufficient capacity, lack up-to-date technology, and lack an effective workforce plan. Britain is behind our neighbours on the number of radiotherapy machines, and we are behind our neighbours in how advanced that machinery is. In France, for example, there are twice as many linear accelerators per head as we have in the United Kingdom. Across the OECD, roughly 9% of cancer budgets are spent on radiotherapy; in the UK we spend a paltry 5%. One in two of us will have cancer at some point, and one in two people with cancer should have radiotherapy—to be precise, 53% of us should—yet only 35% of cancer patients in the UK had radiotherapy as their primary treatment. In fact, the regional variation in access to radiotherapy ranges from the lowest of only 29.8%—by the way, that is in my constituency—up to 50%. There are shocking variations based on tumour type, too. Only 11% of lung cancer patients in some regions receive radiotherapy, compared with 43% in other regions. Only 18% of rectal cancer patients receive radiotherapy in some areas, compared with 62% in others. People’s chances of surviving should not depend on their postcode. Inadequate and inequitable radiotherapy capacity is costing lives. Over the past decade, more than 500,000 patients have waited more than two months for their first cancer treatment. Yet the chilling reality is that for every four weeks of delay in treatment we have a 10% reduction in our chances of surviving. The Royal College of Radiologists reminds us that in 2024 only 38% of patients starting radiotherapy did so within two months of an urgent referral for cancer. The national target is 85%. Let us compare that with other forms of cancer treatment: 68% of patients had surgery for their cancer in that time, and 64% started chemotherapy within that two months. That means that over 10,000 patients requiring radiotherapy received their treatment after the recommended timeframe. In 2023 some 92% of cancer centres reported delays in patients starting radiotherapy. That is one of the main reasons why the UK is near the bottom of the OECD cancer outcome rankings, which is a sanitised way of saying that people with cancer in Britain are more likely to die sooner than in other equivalent countries. So longer journeys mean shorter lives, and longer waiting times also mean shorter lives.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. Many people watching the debate today, whether physically in the Gallery or on television outside, are part of that outstanding workforce, and we are massively grateful to them. What a career for someone to be in, where you are saving lives every day and alleviating pain. That is a wonderful thing, yet there are not enough of them. The workforce is part of the solution, as well as the challenge, to the problem that we face. For us in Westmorland, longer journeys mean shorter lives. The answer is clear for us in Westmorland, and that is to build a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal as part of the Rosemere unit, following the model of the many excellent satellite units around the UK. The number of cancer patients travelling from south Cumbria each year for radiotherapy provides demand for at least one linear accelerator at the Westmorland general hospital. If the experience of other new satellite centres around the country is replicated, such as at the new Hereford site, which is a satellite of Cheltenham, a satellite centre in Kendal would attract at least 20% more patients than existing demand, because people who would not have had radiotherapy treatment at all beforehand would now be able to access it, simply because it is closer to them. That a satellite unit in Kendal has not already happened is an indictment of the lack of responsiveness to the obvious need from NHS England, and of a lack of concern for cancer patients and their families who live in rural communities.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the accessibility of radiotherapy. It is a great honour to serve under your guidance, Sir John, and it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the accessibility of radiotherapy on World Cancer Day. Three quarters of those in my communities in Westmorland live dangerously too far from radiotherapy treatment. It has been my privilege over the years to drive a number of my constituents to the Rosemere centre at Preston to get treatment, and I am always struck by the quality of the treatment and the warmth and professionalism of the staff, but also by the gruelling impact on my constituents, on whom the daily lengthy journeys take a terrible toll.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. Travel times, which I will come on to in a moment, do have an impact on outcomes—in other words, whether people survive—because there is an impact on the extent to which a person will be referred for treatment depending on how close they are to the nearest site. What she says is absolutely right, especially for her communities. For my constituents, the two, three or in some cases four-hour round trip to the excellent but distant Rosemere cancer unit at Preston is not just inconvenient, but debilitating and cruel. It means that many do not complete their treatment, and many choose not even to start such treatment. Some do not even get referred for radiotherapy in the first place, because clinicians understandably conclude that the patient is not strong enough to cope with the rigours of travelling such distances so frequently. For us in Westmorland, longer journeys mean shorter lives.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  Because I did!

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, Sir John, thank you for your oversight of this debate and for keeping us in order. I also thank everybody who has contributed from the Front and Back Benches. Members from all sides of the House have contributed so knowledgably and passionately on behalf of their communities, so I am really grateful to them all. I especially thank the Minister for his response and for agreeing to my two requests. That is great—I appreciate it very much indeed. I also appreciated his statement in the main Chamber earlier, when he spoke very movingly about his own family experiences. We share an experience: my mum also passed away from ovarian cancer, at a similar age to his mum. We begin to see the impact that cancer has on the lives of just about every single family, so when we get to a position where we can do something about it, what a privilege that is and what an opportunity, which we absolutely must not miss. Since I still have a few moments left, I encourage Members who are not already members of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy to join up, please: we will not overburden you. I have discovered over time that decisions are so often made in the interest of the people who are in the room, so we need to be in the room. Chemotherapy is a really vital part of cancer treatment and the pharmaceutical industry that goes with it has tons of resource to lobby us; that is good, and it is entitled to do that. Radiotherapy is a very different industry. This is the lobby—so we need to be in the room to make sure that we are equally heard and that radiotherapy is part of the armoury to tackle and defeat cancer. Money is vital, but leadership is key. Having people who will be “on it” constantly within NHS England at the senior levels—who want this to happen, who are dissatisfied with how things are and who are hungry for change—is essential, but, without meaning any disrespect to anybody, I do not see that at the moment. I am, though, encouraged by what the Minister said about trying to instil it. Radiotherapy is non-invasive. It is increasingly targeted and accurate. In the time that I have been involved in this area of campaigning, I have seen an exponential increase in how targeted it is and therefore how strong the doses, so to speak—the fractions—can be. I have seen the damage that can be done to a tumour without seriously damaging the healthy tissue around it. If the Minister is trying to convince his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to give us more money, he should argue that radiotherapy is so beneficial for the economy, because people will go back to work healthy, earn money and pay taxes. I thank the Minister very much again for responding to points made in the debate. My final point is to make again the case for satellite radiotherapy units around the country, not just in my patch. His civil servants might want to look into this more deeply. Among the wonderful people I met today was a young clinician, James, who works in a radiotherapy unit in London. He used to work in Cheltenham, which then of course branched out to have a satellite unit at Hereford. He was able to demonstrate and vouch for the fact that that new satellite unit ended up with getting on for 25% more patients than it had originally planned for. That was for one obvious reason: people who would not have had radiotherapy at all were able to get it because it was closer to them. The important thing to remember is that satellite units are not just about convenience—in fact, they are not even about convenience; they are about saving people’s lives and returning people to normal life if possible. I again thank the Minister for the attention he has given this issue, and I thank everybody else here today for taking part in this debate—not least yourself, Sir John. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the accessibility of radiotherapy.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I feel that the hon. Member has a point to make.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Back at the time of the last Labour Government, the national radiotherapy advisory group recommended that it was bad practice for anybody to live beyond 45 minutes of a radiotherapy centre one-way, or a round trip of an hour and a half, yet so many people—7.5 million people—including his constituents and my constituents, live beyond that.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. By definition, almost all of the radiotherapy deserts—those places that are beyond sensible and safe travelling times—are rural communities. As a result, they have terrible public transport. It is not just about the cost. The increase in the bus fare cap is hugely damaging, but for many of our communities—my hon. Friend’s and mine alike—it almost does not matter what the bus cap is; if there is no bus to spend the fare on, people are stuffed, really. That has a huge impact on their cancer outcomes, which means whether they survive or not.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  That is a good point. Early diagnosis is vital. We are getting a bit better at it, but it would be a tragedy if we diagnosed people but then did not treat them early enough to cure them. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on behalf of his communities. If we cannot cope with treating the number of cancer patients we are seeing now, how will we deal with the projected 30% increase in cancer cases by 2040? The good news—the very, very good news—is that it does not need to be this way. The upcoming cancer plan, of which we have heard an outline today, is an opportunity to supercharge cancer services and transform a culture of normalising unacceptable delays into one that drives continuous cancer care improvements. However, without decisive and radical action and leadership, lives will continue to be lost needlessly.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a combination of reasons, which I will come on to in a moment, but distance from treatment is undoubtedly the critical point that decides whether people can access and take advantage of lifesaving and life-prolonging treatment.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I would not be doing my job at all well if I did not pursue the Minister on this point. Earlier, he very kindly talked about meeting the all-party group to talk about the national picture, and I want to press him on our local bid to tackle the problem he has just spoken about. Will he meet me and local oncologists to talk about how we can deliver a radiotherapy satellite centre in Kendal?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes wonderful points, and it is absolutely right that in every corner of the United Kingdom we need to ensure that we have the staffing, the kit and the level of technology to meet need close enough to where people live for people to be kept safe and treated in a convenient way. In Westmorland, we successfully campaigned to bring chemotherapy, greater amounts of surgery and a new diagnostic hub to Kendal. All of that is welcome, and all of that has saved lives. I am unbelievably grateful to all those in our communities who campaigned alongside us, and to the wonderful NHS professionals who deliver and run those services, but the failure of successive Governments, including the one I was a part of, and NHS management to take the people of Westmorland out of the radiotherapy desert is utterly inexcusable given the multiple opportunities to do so over the last 30 or so years. So my first ask of the Minister is that he takes a personal interest in the call for a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal, and that he meets with me and with oncologists, commissioners and patients, to kickstart that bid.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Will the Minister agree to meet the wonderful Cumbria Action for Sustainability and me to address some of the imperfections in the Government home insulation programme? It does not properly support older rural-community properties that are single-skinned, not so easy to insulate, and therefore not so easy to keep heated cheaply.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of farmers and other small business owners in Westmorland who earn less than the minimum wage are not eligible for universal credit because of the failure of that system to take account of variability of income. Will the Minister look to put that right so that we can support the people who support us?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is being super generous and I am grateful to her. She makes excellent points. We obviously have means by which we can control how those things happen, through the environmental land management payment scheme and planning law. Would she agree that, through both of those streams, we should be able to ensure that food security is at least as important as energy security, and that we should not be using productive agricultural land for solar farms when they can be developed elsewhere? Westmorland and Furness Council, for example, has used disused land to provide a solar farm of its own on non-agricultural land.