Zubir Ahmed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a practising surgeon who deals with bile duct cancer, I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is almost never a reason that someone should be in that state, with feculent vomiting, if they were treated appropriately and all the relevant palliative care measures were in place.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. It is on the foundational principles of the Bill that I primarily want to concentrate today. The first is the idea of a “six months to live” label. “Terminal illness” is a fast-changing medical diagnosis in the modern medical world, and it is becoming an increasingly meaningless term. Only yesterday evening, I was in the company of a professor of respiratory medicine who, with rightful satisfaction, told me that many of his stage 4 lung cancer patients who were designated with six months to live in 2023 are being managed as having a chronic disease in 2026. In my practice, if a patient comes to see me with stage 4 colon cancer that has spread to their liver, the advent of immunotherapy means that I have an equal chance of telling them they have six months to live or six years to live. Under this law, when I meet that kind of patient, it is unclear to me, with the Supreme Court precedents around consent, whether I should be offering them immunotherapy and an assisted death at the same sitting. A six-month prognosis will take a new and unhealthy salience in every clinical conversation. It will be a label some will desire, and others will want at all costs to avoid being placed on their clinical record. It will fundamentally change and undermine the candidness and sanctity of the patient-doctor conversation and relationship.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for her powerful testimony. I know that she has personal experience of this matter. When you visit places like Govan and Pollok, you know what vulnerability looks like. Those people cannot send their voices down here via the mic, the TV studio or a billboard in Westminster tube station. We need to make sure that they do not feel the burden of making what some call an option, or a choice, their obligation or duty.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak on this matter as an active medical practitioner, a transplant surgeon and a cancer surgeon. Much of my clinical practice for the last 20 years has revolved around caring for unwell complex patients, many of whose illnesses flicker between the labels of “terminal illness” and “life-limiting illness”. It is some of that experience that I wish to bring to bear on this debate. Let me start off by acknowledging the varied experiences people have at the end of their life, or their loved ones’ lives. I have cared for and operated on thousands of patients in that position, and I have helped many, but I have often fallen short, and some of those stories have played vividly in my mind over the last few days. When they have, I have reflected on the fact that more often, when things have not gone right, it is not because of a failure, but rather an absence of universally available good-quality palliative and psychological care. Today, as a Member of this place and as a surgeon, my job is to help move this discussion beyond the emotive and the case study to level-headed analysis that will serve our society well, not only today but for decades to come. Having read this Bill again, and with the hindsight of ministerial experience in the Department of Health and Social Care, I am more convinced than ever that our social care and palliative care systems simply are not ready to meet the demands of this Bill—at least not equitably. The Bill, when taken from the laboratory of legislative text and dispatched to the bedside and the clinical frontier, will not serve its laudable aims of bringing choice and control over a pre-emptive, quick death, which is what many desire and expect from this legislation. While it will not fulfil those aims, it will expose millions: the quietly vulnerable. I think of constituents and patients of mine in Glasgow South West, more often than not women, who quietly concede to me, usually in the sanctity of a clinic room, that they do not wish to be a burden, and who have on many occasions asked me to end their life because they have suffered multi-generational financial strains and do not want their illness to hold back their children and their grandchildren. When you visit places like Govan and Pollok as a parliamentarian, as well as a doctor, you understand that as a society, we are only scratching the surface of understanding the full extent of coercive control in this country.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Scottish context. We voted down such legislation on Third Reading, when we understood the impacts and the wider societal ramifications. I have to be honest. When I am asked to prognosticate on whether someone has six months to live, I am as often wrong as I am right. It is no longer a good enough marker for the DWP to use in discharging benefits for life-limiting conditions, and I do not see why it should be a good enough marker for prescribing death. There is another paradox in this legislation: someone like me could write a prescription to induce death with less regulatory oversight than is on me when I have to remove a kidney to give life through transplantation. Of course, I sympathise with and endorse the desire of many colleagues who support this Bill to relieve suffering. To be clear, we have many tools to do this, and we must bust some myths today. Clinical discretion, for instance, means that there is no maximum dose of morphine, so I can give my patients whatever they need, in the setting in which they need it. But this Bill is less about relieving suffering and more about bypassing its possibility, and I understand that. The Bill is in many ways advocating for death as prophylaxis. Under the definition in this Bill, death must be induced by medical prescription. It will be the only medical prescription that I will be able to write as a doctor but not administer, because the burden of administration falls to the patient, and the weight of expectation falls on the patient. We must discuss the mechanisms by which death will occur: muscle paralysis, slowing of the heart rate, sedation, and the possibility that paralysis will take hold before sedation does. Death will not be an event; it will still be a process. In 15% of cases, it will be subject to some form of complication, such as vomiting or seizures, and it will not always achieve its goal. I wish I could give hon. Members more information about the complication profile, but despite this procedure being prevalent in other jurisdictions across the world, the data continues to be woefully lacking. Alongside that, the 14-day cooling off period means that the patient must remain lucid in that time. There have been cases elsewhere in the world where patients have denied themselves palliative care and pain relief to remain lucid in order to consent to their death. I am therefore of the opinion that the foundational elements of this Bill will create the allure of choice and control, but not the agency to pursue either. Turning to safeguards, much is made of the provision requiring two doctors to assess eligibility, but the trouble is that neither has to know the patient well, or go to any great lengths to exclude the likelihood of coercion. Doctors are trained to do many things, but assessing and picking up on coercion is not one of them. In fact, consultant psychiatrists with PhDs in coercion, like the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whom I hope we will hear from soon, have said in written testimony presented in court that they would find it difficult to exclude coercive controlling behaviour. I came into medicine, and into Parliament, to act with compassion, and to provide dignity to those we serve. I believe that is why we are all here. Compassion and kindness is not the preserve of one those on one side of the argument or another, but for me, compassion and kindness also calls to courage—the courage to be honest with patient and constituent alike. We need the compassion and honesty to say that the Bill will not fulfil its aims; it will disappoint many who crave total agency and control, and it will expose and disenfranchise further the vulnerable in our society. We need the compassion and honesty to say that our NHS, while a great institution, is not, in its current form and state, ready. It is not safe for this conversation or for this Bill in this moment.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Vascular Sector Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), to his place—he knows that I was in his place not too long ago, and I will be kind to him in my asks. I also welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who is a former orthopaedic surgeon, so he knows a thing or two about the blood vessels that run around the bones of the body. It feels like a unique privilege for me to stand here today as the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West—where we have one of the largest hospitals in the country—a trained vascular surgeon, and a former Minister who was partly involved in bringing forward the cardiovascular modern service framework when I was in post. Vascular surgery was my bread and butter when I was a surgeon. There is no greater feeling for a surgeon and their team than returning blood flow to the limb—usually a lower limb—of a patient with critical limb ischemia, preventing them from undergoing a near-certain amputation, and watching them walk out of hospital. That is usually the culmination of many years of surgical training. I shall take this opportunity, because I may never get it again as a parliamentarian, to thank those who trained me and many like me in the west of Scotland and enabled us to acquire and practise those skills: people like George Welch, Wesley Stuart, Keith Hussey, David Kingsmore, David Wallace and Steven Boom, and colleagues in the Public Gallery such as my good friend Tamim Siddiqui, a consultant vascular surgeon in the west of Scotland. I am biased, but I believe that the west of Scotland vascular surgery is a cut above the rest, although other vascular surgeons are available in the Public Gallery. One of the reasons I think the west of Scotland vascular surgeons are a cut above the rest is that, unfortunately, our area suffers from some of the highest burdens of vascular disease in the country. That is reflected in the statistics more widely. In Scotland, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are going down, having steadily increased from 1980 until about 2012. We now have some of the lowest life expectancy rates anywhere in western Europe. We have to reflect on why that is. Scotland spends more on its NHS and has more staff and resource relative to the rest of the country, yet productivity is lower. Scottish hospitals are treating fewer patients now than before the pandemic, unlike English hospitals, which have surpassed pre-pandemic activity levels under the Labour Government. We have to reflect on where the political failure lies. On behalf of my constituents in Glasgow South West, it is only responsible to reference the fact that the SNP Government have proposed a massive restructuring of Scotland’s NHS, seemingly without any detailed consultation with anyone. It is not clear who that structural change serves, how much it will cost, or how we can judge its success or failure. I urge the Minister, who also has responsibility for four-nation engagement, to ask the Scottish Government how we can help to reverse the trend by imparting our wisdom and what we have learned over the last couple of years about turning around waiting lists and optimising clinical pathways. We have become habituated to the idea that there is a physical border between Scotland and England that cannot be transcended, whereas I believe that we can co-operate and problem solve instead of point scoring. I urge the Minister to lend the weight of his office so that patients near the border can benefit from services each way and do not have to travel 80 or 100 miles to receive services simply for lack of political will. I shall be grateful if he does that and writes to me about the outcome. Will the Minister consider the asks from the Circulation Foundation and the APPG, with which I have done some work in the recent past? As we all know, diabetes is unfortunately on the rise. Synonymous with diabetes is diabetic foot, which is now the primary cause of limb loss in this country. A concerted effort is required because early intervention on a diabetic foot can prevent major limb amputation. I ask the Minister that we think about the national foot attack pathway, with a same-day or next-day triage service for urgent cases that enables much quicker treatment of diabetic feet and diabetic foot sepsis. The model of stroke care that we have established, particularly in England with thrombectomy services, which I understand will become near-universal in only a few months—it is far from universal in Scotland—is a good model to follow for diabetic foot care and the national foot attack pathway. We need community foot protection services in every single integrated care board, with multidisciplinary hubs linked to specialist centres, so that we can offer more care not in hospital, but in the community, which is a linchpin of our 10- year health plan in England; and the implementation of national waiting time standards of five days for in-patients and two weeks for out-patients with transparent reporting. If we do that, we will save not only money, but limbs and lives. On commissioning, we have all become too habituated to paying for activity and inputs. It is time to shift the dial and pay for an outcome. In many ways, vascular disease and diabetic foot disease offer an early win—an early exemplar—of how we can shift the dial on commissioning services from input to output. Alongside that, it is important to think about how we support innovation, which is in the Minister’s title. I know at first hand that there are so many innovative vascular scientists and specialist surgeons doing things very differently from what we were doing only five years ago. They need the Government’s support. The Government will be pushing at an open door if they come forward with new ideas for how to innovate so that patients benefit directly from effective technologies and digital technologies. We can even optimise the NHS app to produce end-to-end digital pathways for these patients. I know that the Minister takes these matters very seriously and will consider them in his response. I end where I began, by thanking everyone who has attended today, particularly the colleagues from the vascular community in the Public Gallery. I reiterate that it has been an honour and a privilege to be part of this debate, as a parliamentarian serving a constituency with a diverse community that suffers from diabetes and vascular disease, but also as a proud member of the vascular surgical community.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Vascular Sector Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making a powerful case that to govern is to make decisions. Does he agree that when it comes to the NHS, while we talk a lot about money, input and investment, today we are ultimately talking about reform, taking different decisions and showing leadership? Does he agree that, given the situation in Scotland and my constituency of Glasgow South West, where there is more money and more staff, it is quite obvious that it is political will that ultimately makes the difference?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Vascular Sector Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will be quick, because I know the Minister wants to wind up and I am sure he has plenty of things to do. He is talking powerfully about the digital offering that the Labour Government are providing to patients today in England and, more importantly, our ambitions for the digital offer in the future. This will seem like science fiction to many of my constituents in Glasgow South West, where we have no NHS app and very little digital connectivity in the healthcare system. Will the Minister please take the learning and markers of quality—particularly the digital quality markers—that he is describing in the modern service framework to our friends and colleagues in the Scottish Government? My constituents cannot wait any longer.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of all communities in Glasgow South West, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their global leadership. That leadership means we call the atrocities in the west bank terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and that we continue to support the Gazans—with full fervour—with anything they require. On Gaza, he knows that many of my NHS colleagues have worked and served there, so may I ask him to continue to support them, and to provide medical aid not only by bringing children here, but by making sure there is better infrastructure closer to home?