Dame Siobhain McDonagh
MP for Mitcham and Morden · Labour · United Kingdom
“Q5. In a capital city still scarred by the loss of 72 lives in the Grenfell fire, we have a second equally flammable and deadly risk. In bedrooms and corridors across London, low-paid deliverers for Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats are charging the tools of their trade: lethal lithium e-bike batteries.”
“I am therefore delighted that NHS London announced up to £57 million to expand and modernise St Helier’s emergency department. However, that cannot be the end. St Helier needs renewal. Only days later, there was an announcement that disrepair in the women’s services block meant that it would have to close.”
“The walk-in centre at the Wilson hospital in Mitcham, which once treated patients every day until midnight, even on Christmas day, has gone. Out-of-hours GP services have been reduced. Those patients have not disappeared; they now go to St Helier.”
“A number of constituents who work as nurses in the A&E department at St Helier hospital asked me to come to see for myself what they were dealing with. They asked me to come late on a Monday morning, rather than a Saturday or Sunday night as I had anticipated. What I saw was deeply troubling.”
“St Helier hospital has the fourth best maternity unit in the country, the only exclusively NHS-run assisted conception unit in south-west London, and a specialist gynaecology ward where nurses are highly trained in counselling. Yet all that is set to close next May because of the need for emergency repairs.”
“I thank the Petitions Committee and my friends from Brain Cancer Justice, who I affectionately think of as the provisional wing of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours. In July last year, we launched Margaret’s trial at University College London hospital.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dame Siobhain McDonagh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“We will be doing that only on one site, at UCL and UCLH. That is because the structure of drug trials in the NHS continues to be so difficult—this was identified by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his report—that going to more sites would take years. People diagnosed with this condition have not got years, so we all have to intervene. Most Ministers in the previous Government and those in this Government have been incredibly well organised and well motivated. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, which has made our trial possible at this speed, but unless we personally get involved, no great speeches, wishing or hoping will make a change. The system does not want change. We have to enforce change. Question put and agreed to.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about Margaret. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I appreciate that they have been taken from their constituencies, where there will be great celebrations for the 80th anniversary of VE Day. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate. I suggested to the Committee that I did not want last Thursday because it was polling day, so when I was offered 8 May, I did not really feel that I could refuse. I say to the Minister, the shadow Ministers and all hon. Members that if we rely on the system as it is, there will be no progress. The only way to bring about progress is to intervene and to challenge. To that end, I am delighted to say that in July we will be launching the first drug trial in Margaret’s memory, to try immunotherapy on people with glioblastoma.”
“That hospital has not been reopened; the money has not been found, so it remains closed. The scheme is also dependent on an increase in home births in Mitcham and Morden, which has the highest levels of social housing, the greatest housing deprivation and the most overcrowded conditions in the region. This is the Tudor Hart law writ large, where hospital services are taken away from those who need them most and given to the areas that need them least. I ask the Minister: save taxpayers’ money. Already £50 million has been spent consulting on this scheme. Nobody wants it and nobody supports it. Leave St Helier hospital as it is. Spend the money that the Government have on St Helier hospital and give better services to those who need them most.”
“The hospital will provide 80 fewer beds than we have at the moment, serve 83,000 fewer patients, and put increased pressure on St George’s hospital in Tooting and Croydon University hospital—both hospitals that the Care Quality Commission has said need fewer patients to arrive at their sites. This scheme would give them more patients. Worse than that, it depends on a 3% annual reduction in lengths of hospital stays and a 3% annual reduction in activity. What hospital in the country has experienced a reduction in activity? It is also based on increased access to mental health services, which should have been provided last year, the development of community paediatric pathways, a child development centre—yet to be seen—and the reopening of the Wilson hospital in Mitcham.”
“I have a unique case to make in this debate on behalf of my constituents and Merton council. We do not want the new emergency hospital at Belmont, which is in phase 2 of the hospital rebuilding programme. In direct contrast to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), I have fought this scheme for 25 years against all Governments—my own Government, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government. This plan will take the hospital away from my constituents with the greatest health needs, the largest levels of deprivation, the lowest car use, the highest hospital admissions and the greatest level of chronic conditions, and take it to healthy, wealthy Belmont at a cool cost of £1.5 billion.”
“She gets no notifications; she simply walks round the blocks and gets the families she already knows to be her spies, in order to find out if families are moving in. She has been known to run into flats after delivery drivers to see if she could find a baby. These families are often placed in accommodation that is so small that the children cannot learn to walk. They are displaced from the support of grandparents, churches and other community groups. They desperately need Debbie’s help, but she does not know they are there.”
“They worry that that would mean their children being removed from the children and adolescent mental health services list, which we know can be as long as 12 months, being removed from operation lists at local general hospitals, and generally being displaced along with being misplaced in accommodation. This also means—we probably consider this far less—that the health visitor does not know that a family with young children has moved into the area. I have a great friend, Debbie Fawcett, a Queen’s nurse who is the homelessness health visitor to families in Merton. Part of her job is to regularly go to hostels, converted warehouses and converted office blocks in and around my constituency to find out where these children are.”
“In Merton, we have just under 700 families in temporary accommodation. That is probably the lowest number in London, but to me it is an extraordinary number that I worry about every day, every night, and at every advice surgery. Some 80% of those families are placed outside the borough. When they are placed somewhere outside the borough, the council is required to place only two notifications: one with the receiving borough and one with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—it does not have to inform the schools or the GP—and nothing happens, so all these boroughs are taking on families that they know nothing of. Families often do not want their GP to know that they have moved, because they worry about being removed from their list.”
“In London, the area that I understand best, one in every 21 children is living in temporary accommodation—that is at least one in every school class. In schools in central London, 50% or 60% of children could be living in temporary accommodation. That was certainly the case for Harris Peckham. Last year, an article in The Sunday Times identified it as having 60% of its children in temporary accommodation. That school, like all schools in the Harris Federation, tries to do its best for those large numbers. It has set up a drop-in centre in the school, to allow parents to take their children to school, spend the day in school, and go home with their children in the evening. We constituency MPs probably understand a lot more clearly than most in our communities the impact of what is going on.”
“We should already be thinking, “How did we come to have tens of thousands of children in temporary accommodation, which is almost exclusively in a terrible state of repair, miles away from anybody who is watching them?”. Many of the families we are talking about are not just homeless, but are the most vulnerable in our community. They include children with special needs, and children and families who experience great difficulty in their day-to-day lives. There are those who have disrupted families, those who move frequently, and those who just find things difficult. As of right now, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation. On average, 54 children from homeless families are placed in temporary accommodation every day.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, through you, wish all Members of the House a very happy St Patrick’s day? I rise to speak on new clause 14. What it proposes is not brain surgery, and it is not new or exciting, but it is an essential part of how we approach the enormous problem of children living in temporary accommodation miles away from their home, their home borough, their school and their doctor. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who spoke for the Opposition, said that he thought we would look back at the issue of mobile phones in schools and think, “What were we thinking to allow that to happen?”.”
“The NHS has a drug repurposing office. To date, it has repurposed one drug, and that was for breast cancer. Does my hon. Friend think that is good enough?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a whole range of new modern immunotherapy drugs that could be used on these cancers? They already exist, they are used to treat other people, but they are simply not tried. The cost of those trials is not overwhelming and we can do them, and the NHS repurposing project should be doing them.”
“I have been to see the MHRA numerous times and have asked about repurposed drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies are worried about repurposing drugs; the fear is that if glioblastoma research were to affect the main cause for having the drug, that might make the drug less successful. We have beseeched the MHRA to treat glioblastoma separately. Would the hon. Lady support such a move?”
“We either see and harness progress, or we come back next year, the year after and the year after that to ask why there has been no progress. All of us, individually and communally, need to dedicate ourselves to that progress and to keep asking the questions, being angry and simply refusing to accept that nothing can be done.”
“We will have a report on the orphan drug Act in 18 months’ time. In that period, over 3,500 people will have been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, and many of them will have died. Why is it going to take us 18 months? Why can’t we change things now? Why, in spite of the huge support we have had for the Bill from the Secretary of State for Health, could we not get something much more fierce in it? It is not a criticism; it is an observation. I know progress begins slowly, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West taking up the Bill and for having the calm demeanour that I lack, because I do not think the Whips would have accepted anything that I would have come up with as a private Member’s Bill. We need a revolutionary attitude.”
“Let us face it: in the end, only people who are well motivated and willing to take a risk can change things. Beyond that, people will continue to die, will continue having to go to other countries, will continue having to spend large amounts of money. People not lucky enough to be in that position will just die prematurely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill and for the courtesy he has always shown me, which must have been difficult at times as I sat shouting at him in Portcullis House about how everything was useless and hopeless. In my calmer moments, I understand that progress begins with small steps. I am frustrated that those steps are too small. I am delighted that there will be one database for trials, but if there are no trials, the database does not get us very far.”
“Members, but since I joined the Labour party, and since I became an MP in 1997, I have got up every day and hoped that we could make things better in some way. I do not understand why our systems do not want to do the same thing. I want to understand, but it is beyond me. If there are drugs that could cure or give longer life to people with glioblastoma, why don’t we trial them? That is not beyond our ability. We have the money to do it. If we do not have the money, we will raise it. We just need the opportunity. I do not know why we do not have that wish to achieve. I was given some hope yesterday by the proposed abolition of NHS England, because something needs to change. I do not know whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but we need to liberate people to do things.”
“I have told the stories of holding my sister’s head as she was sick in a bucket in terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, of carrying her on to a plane in the hope that the air stewardess would not see how she was, of lying next to her overnight hoping that she would be alive in the morning, because what was I going to do in a hotel in Germany, where I could not speak that language? That is my experience, but I am only one of thousands and thousands of people who do this every year, including children, because our system will not allow the use of novel treatments. Why? Why can’t we change things? Why don’t we get up every single day and want to cure something? I do not know about other hon.”
“My sister fundraised for that machine, because we had to go to Dusseldorf to have it, so we brought it here. It is great that he is receiving much benefit from it. I know that many other people are, too. Why is the NHS, which is so risk-averse that it will not allow slightly alternative therapies for cancer, happy for people who are really ill to get on a plane and go to a different country? Is it because it does not see what happens in another country, so that is okay?”
“They have to be able to withstand that drug themselves. Margaret could not do that. By March, five months on from her diagnosis, she could not take it; her kidneys collapsed. What happens then? We had money and good friends. At this point, I would like publicly to thank Lord Waheed Alli for the kindness and friendship he showed us through Margaret’s journey. The treatment that he has experienced from the press is absolutely appalling. He helped us on our way. But what about somebody with no money who cannot fundraise? Their life ends at the chemotherapy. There is nothing on the NHS, but those lucky enough to have the money can find a way. I am really grateful that the brother-in-law of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) is on the oncotherapy machine.”
“They have all been dedicated, and all wanted to sort this out, but we cannot do this by edict, or by hoping and wishing. Unless we change things and unless, I dare say, some people are removed, it will never happen. All the institutions I mentioned continue to exist because they do not do things differently. Someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma will get the same treatment that they would have got 25 years ago. They will have their tumour removed. They will be delighted that it is gone, but it is not gone; it is coming back. They will be given eight weeks’ radiotherapy. It is brutal. It will help them for a while, but the tumour will come back. Then they get given chemotherapy— the drug is temozolomide, which was approved at the beginning of the 2000s. It will help, but the tumour will come back.”
“We made no progress under the former Conservative Government, and we have made no progress under our Government. The £40 million given to the National Institute for Health and Care Research in 2017 for glioblastoma and brain cancer drug trials has not been spent. Can any Member of the House explain to me how that is humanly possible? Do we not have drugs that we could trial? Yes, of course we do. Trials are not that complicated; we can do them if we choose to. We have the doctors to do them. We need to want to change. I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because when she came to talk to me in the Tea Room this morning, she got this at a very fast pace. I have now met four wonderful cancer Ministers, two Conservative and two Labour.”
“Doing those things gave us a great deal, but why, under our system, do we have to do them? Why is it that the trial in May, under the amazing Paul Mulholland, will be based in only one trust? It is because if we had negotiated with all the other hospital trusts that are experts in this field, it would have taken us two years to get started. Why are we outstripped by Israel, Spain, America and any number of countries? It is because we cannot get our act together to start a trial, as each hospital trust is arguing about and seeking to renegotiate every trial and every plan. This is not new. The issue was raised by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his great report on clinical trials. That report is two years old, but we have made no progress.”
“I could feel sorry for myself and for my loss, but I do not want that; I want things to change. All of us, from all parties, need to run fast and break things, and provide a challenge to the people running our systems. We have a drug repurposing project in the most universal health system in the world, so why are we not repurposing drugs for people with rare cancers? Why is that not being done for glioblastoma? Why is it that in May, we will open a drug trial at University College London and University College London Hospitals trust in Margaret’s memory to trial one such drug that has been in the system for years? We organised a dinner with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; some ran marathons; and others sold cakes and scones in beautiful Cornwall villages.”
“You are only sacked if you do something different.” My God, has this morning not told us that we need to do something different? We have the tools to do something different, but the people in positions of power and responsibility choose not to. We have the best health system in the world for potential drug trials—a uniform system with well-trained doctors, great scientists, great universities and great hospitals—but do we do them? No. Do we fail people every single day? Yes. Do we threaten those doctors who try to do something different? Let me tell the House, groundbreaking oncologists are looking over their shoulder, waiting for the regulator to come and get them when one of their colleagues grasses them up. That is the atmosphere in our intellectual and health service institutions.”
“Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to apologise to the young black man on the Northern line tube from Colliers Wood this morning for having to spend his journey looking at me sobbing my heart out. It must have been a very odd experience. I wanted to say to him, “I am not just sad; I am angry.” I am angry at the NHS. I am angry at the MHRA. I am angry beyond belief at the National Institute for Health Research. It should be renamed the national institute for something that does not do very much at great public expense. All these institutions are bedevilled by the desire to carry on doing what they have always done. It does not get them sacked. As the former Home Secretary John Reid—Lord Reid—constantly tells me, “Siobhan, nobody ever got sacked for continuing to do the same thing.”
“Member think there is any way we can speed up the process of ensuring that those who are guilty of this spillage actually pay the costs?”
“Like the hon. Member, I was born and brought up along the banks of the River Wandle. Today, it is a much more prestigious river than it was all those years ago. In fact, there is a connection with the Chamber today, because the leather on these seats came from Connolly’s leather factory, which was a tannery on the Wandle before Connolly’s moved down to Thurrock to continue its business. It also makes the leather for Rolls-Royce, so its service is very important. I congratulate the hon. Member on all his work on this issue. It seems to make sense as a layperson that the polluter should pay. My concern, and that of many of my constituents, is that that process will take so long that supreme damage will be done to the wildlife and to the Wandle itself unless we do that more quickly. Does the hon.”
“Order. I remind the Member that she came into the debate very late. I do not wish to embarrass her in any way, but if she wants to intervene, she needs to be here at the start of the debate.”
“Order. We are out of time, but I want to make a public apology to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I should have allowed her to intervene, and I certainly meant no discourtesy to her. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“I will call Graham Leadbitter to move the motion. Unusually, two further Members will make a contribution in this half-hour debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to sum up at the end.”
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Please do not take that to be a promise. As everybody can see, a lot of people want to speak. We will endeavour to get through everybody, as is our hope. At the moment, we think the limit is around two minutes, but should it prove necessary to change that, I will let people know.”
“Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down. I apologise—I know that he waited a long time to make his contribution. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has five minutes.”
“I am delighted to announce to the House that we will be opening a drug trial for glioblastoma brain tumours in May, in memory of my late sister, Margaret. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] But for how long will progress on this depend on people baking cakes, running marathons and organising dinners? When will the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Research get their act together and do something for the 3,200 people who will be diagnosed with this dreadful illness this year?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”