The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2016-02-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of the NHS budget was spent on public relations and communications in each of the last five years.
Alistair Burt
The Department does not hold the requested information.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2016-02-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of the NHS budget was spent on public relations consultancy firms in each of the last five years.
Alistair Burt
The Department does not hold the requested information.
The speech made by Pauline Latham, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. After many applications, I am delighted to have secured an opportunity to have this very important debate. Hon. Members may be aware that this is an extremely difficult and personal topic for me, but I hope that sharing my experiences will prompt action that could save lives in the future.
I will begin with a case study, which happens to be my personal story, then move on to what we do in this place to improve patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection. Before I do so, I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee of the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, a charity that I helped to set up.
In the early hours of 11 December 2018, I received a phone call that no mother would ever want. I was told that our son Ben had died. Four years later, we all still feel numb. It seems implausible that Ben, a gregarious 44-year-old with two children and a loving wife, will not simply walk back into our lives. Ben died after suffering an aortic dissection. He had been feeling unwell the previous day, but was sent home after spending four hours in A&E and told to return the next day if he did not feel better. Tragically, the emergency doctors had not understood his symptoms and had not come up with a diagnosis.
Aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta, the body’s largest artery, which carries blood from the heart to the brain, limbs and vital organs. It is a condition that affects approximately 4,000 people a year in the UK and, like Ben, almost all of them are unaware that they have it. Half of them—almost 2,000 people—die soon after the dissection occurs, which is more than die from road traffic accidents in this country. Five hundred of those who die reach hospital, but sadly, as in Ben’s case, their condition is not diagnosed quickly enough, or at all. The other 1,500 die almost immediately after the acute event.
Many of these deaths are preventable. With proactive genetic screening for family members of those who have suffered an aortic dissection and with better treatment of high blood pressure, many of these deaths could be avoided. I am delighted to learn today that the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has announced a fund of £175 million for cutting-edge genomics. As a charity, we would be happy to work with the Department on this issue.
I have to admit that, like most people, I knew nothing about aortic dissection before Ben died, but knowing what a gap his death has left in our family I have immersed myself in efforts to prevent other tragedies. In late 2020, with the eminent cardiac surgeon Graham Cooper and the long-time aortic dissection campaigner, patient and public voice co-ordinator of the NHS cardiac clinical reference group, Catherine Fowler, whose father died in Ireland from this condition, I helped to set up the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust. I am delighted that Graham and Catherine are in the Gallery and listening to the debate. The trust is now a leading UK-registered charity that aims to unite patients, families and the medical community. Our mission is to improve diagnosis, increase survival rates and reduce disability caused by aortic dissection.
Our work encompasses the whole patient pathway, from prevention to diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and support for all those living with aortic dissection. So far, the charity has designed and delivered accredited education events reaching over 3,000 medical professionals, and produced a fantastic set of patient resource videos to support those living with aortic dissection and their families. Instrumental in creating the videos was “Whispering” Bob Harris, who has suffered an aortic dissection and given up a huge amount of time to be an ambassador for the charity. I am delighted that Bob is also in the Gallery today.
The charity has created an online learning portal for the medical community, with learning modules that cover all the multidisciplinary aspects, in order to improve education on aortic dissection in the medical community, and ultimately to improve patient experiences and outcomes. The free and accessible learning portal, produced with experts in the field of aortic dissection, will be launched this week. We have also attended a number of medical conferences and presented to cardiac specialists and emergency medicine doctors, most recently in October at the European Emergency Medicine Congress 2022 in Berlin. We have designed and delivered national all-day education symposiums to establish learning communities and to increase knowledge and education for paramedics, emergency medics and surgeons in Scotland, Ireland and England, with many more such events planned. I have to say that the “we” are mainly the other trustees, because I am very much the junior and more silent trustee of the partnership.
The charity has also worked with NHS England and a group of clinical experts on the design of the aortic dissection toolkit. Seven key principles have now been established, setting out best practice for the patient pathways from the point of treatment through to diagnosis. We are delighted that the toolkit has reached the implementation phase, and the charity is actively supporting this critical phase by working with the regions that have reached out to the charity for support.
The charity has also launched research grants to fund research into how we can better diagnose and treat aortic dissection. For my part, I have sought to raise the issue in the House of Commons, including at Prime Minister’s questions in March and since then in meetings with Ministers. I thank the Minister responding to the debate for her commitment to aortic dissection and for having taken the time to meet the charity trustees last month.
In almost two years, the charity has had a big impact, but there is much more that we can do to save 2,000 lives a year in this country. I would like to set out some of the important changes we would like to see. So far, I have spoken about 2,000 deaths a year and 4,000 cases of aortic dissection, but a worrying statistic is that as our population ages, we expect to see about 7,000 cases of aortic dissection every year by 2050. It is crucial that we take steps now to improve the patient pathway, to ensure that as few of these cases as possible are fatal.
It is surprising but true that there is a lack of detailed and accurate data regarding the incidence, treatment and patient outcomes for acute aortic dissection in England. That is particularly true for patients like Ben, who do not reach a specialist treatment centre alive. Such data would assist in understanding the true scale of the problem and where any interventions might be directed. Of course our family understands that, even if he had been diagnosed, Ben might not have survived the catastrophic event, which happened in the middle of the night, but our passion to learn more about why he died seems to have highlighted gaps in the system, which, if filled, will help others. The least we can do is to press for that to be so. No child deserves to have their mother or father taken away, no wife should be bereft at the sudden loss of a husband, and no parents should have to bury their son.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly passionate and personal contribution to the House. We all recognise that this is a subject very close to her heart, and we recognise her passion and commitment.
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that all parties work together to make this better.
First, I encourage the Minister to see what more can be done to increase and improve data collection around aortic dissection, to make as much of the data as possible publicly available to assist with clinical research. Secondly, I would like to focus on improvements that we can make to the patient pathway. The single most important improvement is in diagnosis. For those accurately diagnosed, more than 80% survive.
I will come back to how we can focus research funding. For now, I would like to emphasise that increased research funding for diagnosis is required. The other improvement on diagnosis that the Government can make is to ensure that doctors in emergency departments receive adequate training and advice on the symptoms of aortic dissection and how to spot a potential case. A freedom of information request recently showed that only half of NHS trusts had a policy or procedure concerning the diagnosis of aortic dissection in the emergency department and that only a small proportion used the guidelines from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine or from the Royal College of Radiologists. The charity is doing a huge amount to educate medical professionals. Can the Minister comment on what central guidance has been made available from the NHS for emergency departments?
The launch of the NHS aortic dissection toolkit, which I mentioned, is incredibly important, but it only covers the patient pathway from the point of diagnosis to treatment and does not cover diagnosis itself. Can the Minister commit to considering extending that toolkit or working with experts and the charity to design and develop a new toolkit for diagnosis of aortic dissection, which can be rolled out in all emergency medicine settings around the country?
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s bravery in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I know that she has been through a lot personally. As she says, no parent would want to experience the death of a child as a result of aortic dissection and her subsequent and recent work to bring this debate here and her work with the charity is commendable. I am sure that it will lead to many lives being saved in future.
On the point about diagnosis, I remember from my days in the emergency department that fast scanning, which is a simple technique that uses an ultrasound scan to check for free fluid in the abdomen, was a very important tool that we could use to detect aortic dissection. It is a simple thing to train ED doctors to do, but that training is not available in the way that it should be. Will my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Minister to ensure that the focus is not always on service delivery in ED? If we are going to have good clinicians, we need to have the right training for them and this is an area that would save lives. Can the Minister put some funding aside specifically for that purpose?
Mrs Latham
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, knowing as he does what it is like to work in an emergency department. A lot of people come through the department, but the study he refers to about the abdominal aortic aneurysm was only for men of a certain age. This affects people from 17, or even younger, to 90. Although that sounds like a good idea, I am not sure that it would work in practice. We need more CT scanners used more frequently in emergency departments, and that is what is missing in part from emergency medicine settings.
The next phase in the patient pathway for those who have been correctly and speedily diagnosed is treatment. As I mentioned, 80% of those diagnosed survive. That is not enough and research is ongoing into better methods of treatment. However, one area where we can certainly improve is long-term treatments that do not require further medical interventions. There is currently a call for research proposals into that from the National Institute for Health and Care Research. That is excellent news and I encourage the Minister to make as much money as possible available for this area of research.
After treatment, it is imperative that the follow-up treatment for aortic dissection patients and their families is of the highest quality. Two thirds of survivors of aortic dissections have some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. They need specialist treatment by somebody who understands their conditions. Furthermore, aortic dissection survivors have a long-term condition that places them at risk of future complications. They need to be monitored by specialist teams and currently, that provision is highly variable. Teams exist in some specialist hospitals, but not all patients are reliably followed up, and too often that is a failure to take a holistic approach to follow up. The employment of specialist nurses in every aortic centre, similar to those in cancer and palliative care, would greatly strengthen follow-up.
The massive improvement in the patient pathway would not be expensive. Although I understand that every penny is being counted in the current situation, to provide a specialist nurse in each of the 29 NHS centres in the country that deal with aortic dissection, for two days a week, would cost less than £400,000 in total per year. The charity has explored the replication of the Macmillan nursing model for aortic nurses and, with funding, would be well positioned to support the design and roll-out of that initiative. Given the enormity of the NHS budget, I hope that is something that the Minister will confirm that she will look into.
The final stage of the patient pathway is genetic screening. About a third of patients who suffer an aortic dissection have some sort of genetic predisposition to the condition. That is why I welcome funding. Screening relatives of sufferers can detect those at risk and proactive treatment can significantly reduce their risk. However, that requires specialised clinical genetics input, access to which is, again, very variable. The technology exists to do that, and it would certainly save lives every single year.
There are two steps the Minister could take to improve this stage of the patient pathway. First, the employment of the specialist nurses I mentioned would be of great assistance. They would lead on the patient’s follow-up plan, part of which would include screening for their relatives. The second step would be for the Minister to facilitate a series of meetings between the relevant professional societies and appropriate NHS staff, to agree and implement a set of NHS guidelines for genetic screening for those suffering aortic dissection and for their relatives.
As I have set out, there are improvements to be made all along the patient pathway, which would go a long way towards saving many of the 2,000 patients every year who would otherwise die from aortic dissections. If nothing is done, that number will only increase in the coming years, so it is crucial that we act now.
Turning to the opportunities for investment in research, which would make a huge difference to the diagnosis and treatment of aortic dissection.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
On the point about genetics and screening, the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, will be doing a big inquiry next year on prevention, and one of the things we will be looking at is upstream prevention for cancers and some of the other big killers. I extend the offer to my hon. Friend and the charity to get in touch with us when we launch that inquiry to give evidence on the screening that they are proposing. We would be interested in looking at that and to take evidence in written or oral form. That inquiry is all about saving lives. What she has said makes a lot of sense to me—it could do just that.
Mrs Latham
I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure the charity would be delighted to come and give evidence. This is a condition that nobody has ever heard of; it is not just about raising awareness, but changing outcomes, and I hope that the Committee’s inquiry into saving lives can help to save some of those 2,000 people. Obviously, they will not all be saved, but 2,000 is a huge number—it is not a very rare condition, but nobody knows about it until it devastates their family. I am delighted to accept that offer on behalf the charity.
Two studies that the charity is supporting known as DAShED—diagnosis of aortic syndrome in the emergency department—and ASES, the aortic syndrome evidence synthesis, are looking at the development of decision tools for use in emergency medicine to ensure that aortic dissections are diagnosed as quickly as possible and can then be effectively treated. These studies are designed to look at the available evidence to improve diagnosis of aortic dissection. Once concluded, there will need to be a second round of funding to measure the impact of implementing those recommendations. Studies that focus on improved diagnosis, while important, are just the first step. The critical breakthrough will be made by the identification of biomarkers and artificial intelligence to detect unusual patterns of presentation of aortic dissection. This research has the potential to save 10 lives a week according to the charity, and I hope that the Minister will comment on what her Department is doing to increase the funding available for research into better diagnosis for aortic dissection.
As I mentioned, this is not just about diagnosis but about treatment. The NIHR has issued a call for research proposals into methods of treatment that would reduce the need for further medical intervention down the line. I know that budgets are likely to remain tight for some time, given the current economic conditions, but I repeat my plea for the Minister to find some money and recommit to the importance of research funding. We must improve how we diagnose and treat these conditions. Of course, the better we diagnose and treat aortic dissection, the less money we will spend in future on treating so many cases. Some 45% of people who have an aortic dissection are under the age of 60, so being diagnosed and treated early allows them to live a life with their family and continue to contribute economically to society.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the improvements I set out both in the patient pathway and on research funding have the potential to save hundreds of lives a year. As I have explained, the number of aortic dissections will only increase with our ageing population, so it would be wise to act now. The charity is partnering in the implementation roll-out of the NHS aortic dissection toolkit across the country, and it has already received a positive and enthusiastic response, but there is more to be done. As I mentioned, there is an opportunity for the Minister to endorse the design and implementation of further toolkits to address the current challenges with diagnosis, elective surgery follow-up and aftercare, covering those aspects of the patient pathway that are not included in the existing toolkit. Improvements in the patient pathway and research funding, such as those that I have set out, are greatly needed, and I hope that the Minister can carefully consider all the recommendations.
Too often in government and in this place, we speak about tragedies in terms of scale—of the numbers of lives lost or numbers of people affected by a catastrophe—but it is all too easy to forget that behind every single statistic there is a family whose lives have been upended by these terrible events. While 4,000 aortic dissection patients a year is a huge number, we must remember that it is much more than that: it is 4,000 people with a family—parents, children, husbands, wives, siblings, relatives and friends. None of them are likely to be aware of aortic dissection before it happens. In Ben Latham’s case, the family was mine, and every single one of us is still feeling the effects of this awful condition that we did not know existed. It has been important for me, as for the other trustees and ambassadors of the charity, to do everything we can to improve the survival rates and treatment of future sufferers, so that other families do not have to go through what we have been through.
The speech made by Pauline Latham, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed so far. This is a crucial issue, and the timing of the debate could not be better. The Government intend to publish their biomass strategy shortly, and I am glad we have the opportunity to make our views known to the Minister in the hope of influencing the soon-to-be-published strategy.
In February, I published an article highlighting the problems with biomass, and I will set out the two key points from it. The first reason why we should avoid continued reliance on biomass relates to the financial and economic sustainability of biomass energy production, which Members have talked about. The current energy crisis, coupled with the climate crisis, means that we need to transition to renewable energy as quickly and cheaply as possible. In the context of rising bills, every pound of taxpayers’ money that goes into subsidising energy production must have the maximum effect. When wind and solar power technology were still prohibitively expensive, we were led to believe that biomass was the answer to all our problems—a carbon-neutral solution that was comparatively cheap. However, things have turned out rather differently: currently, we are subsiding biomass energy prices to the tune of £1 billion a year.
Offshore wind power, on the other hand, has been decreasing in price substantially. Since the 2014 contracts for difference auction, the strike price of offshore wind has come down from £155 per MWh to just £37.35 per MWh in 2022. Biomass, meanwhile, remains at over £90 per MWh, and there is no expectation that its price will fall in the years to come; indeed, adding carbon capture and storage to biomass technology will drive the price even higher—never mind the transportation costs. It was not the wrong economic decision in 2014 to favour biomass and to subsidise that technology—it was the best-value renewable option then. However, it would certainly be the wrong decision in 2022, because of the extraordinary improvements that there have been in wind power technology. From a financial perspective, the Government cannot justify subsidising biomass with public money when that money could instead be used to increase the generation of offshore wind.
The second reason why we should not support and encourage biomass over other renewable energy sources is that its renewable credentials are really very weak. Burning wood pellets actually releases 18% more CO2 than burning coal, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; we only consider it a renewable source because new, replacement trees can absorb that carbon dioxide. However, as has been said, it would take nearly 190 years for the CO2 released by burning trees to be absorbed. At the end of this month, we will have only 27 years left to meet the Government’s target of net zero by 2050, so creating CO2 emissions that will not be absorbed for two centuries should not count as progress towards net zero.
In theory, biomass is not ideal, although it was acceptable when it seemed cheaper than other renewable sources; in practice, it is far worse. The BBC’s “Panorama” exposed some of the practices at Drax’s biomass generation facilities, including that none of the wood burned is from the UK and that that one biomass power station burns the equivalent of half the New Forest every year—27 million trees. The use of farmland and natural habitats for biomass crops takes away from our efforts to restore nature and halt the decline of species by 2030. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that if bioenergy were produced domestically, biomass production would require 30% of UK agricultural land. We would have to replace the food that that land produces with more from abroad, at a time when we already have a problem with our food security.
It is clear that there are serious problems, as well as financial concerns, with biomass as an environmentally sustainable power source. There is no doubt that biomass was useful and important as part of the energy mix in the 2010s, but it is completely wrong now. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government’s biomass strategy limits the role of biomass to a replacement for fossil fuels, not a competitor for renewable energy transition funding. That means reducing or stopping the subsidies for biomass and putting that money into continuing to support domestic forms of renewable energy production such as offshore wind.
The speech made by Pauline Latham, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, I think, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this really important debate and all Members who have contributed so far.
I want to make two short points about the western Balkans and the Council of Europe. The first is based on worrying political developments in the western Balkans, and the second on my visit to Bosnia in February and the report of the International Development Committee on atrocity prevention, which was published following that visit.
As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Council of Europe is the leading body supporting human rights on the European continent. Although we are no longer members of the European Union, we remain at the heart of the rights-based union of the Council of Europe, including through the delegations from this House and the other place, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, that we send to the part-sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly.
As my hon. Friend set out, however, the Council of Europe has been worryingly slow to act in relation to recent developments in the region, which I know from first-hand experience still experiences political instability following the troubles of the 1990s. Indeed, political instability in the region is increasing: there has been violent unrest in Montenegro, concerns about the Dayton peace accord, which ended the Bosnian conflict, and a freeze in negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia over Kosovan independence.
These are very worrying times, and the influence of what is taking place in Ukraine is keenly felt. That is why the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, at its October meeting, called for the EU to increase the speed and urgency of its enlargement process to the western Balkans. Without urgency on the part of the EU, the European vision may lose its appeal to those nations, and they will be at risk of Russian aggression, as we saw in Ukraine. That would be a shame, as the steps being taken by the western Balkan nations in pursuit of EU membership are incredibly positive. They include Bosnia’s 2022 laws banning female genital mutilation and forced marriage. I support the Council of Europe’s motion calling on the EU to increase the impetus accorded to the accession process for the western Balkans, and I hope the EU leadership will take that on board to help prevent further instability in the region.
My second point relates to the Council of Europe’s role as a guardian of human rights on the European continent and atrocity prevention. The International Development Committee’s report on preventing atrocities, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”, highlighted that in addition to a Government strategy on atrocity prevention, multilateral international action is absolutely crucial in safeguarding the population from some of the horror of events such as Srebrenica in Bosnia in July 1995, and more recently the reported war crimes of Putin’s forces in Ukraine.
The Council of Europe must not be understated; it must be prepared to be outspoken on any issues of atrocity prevention, not only through the influence of the European Court of Human Rights, but through the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. I hope the Minister will comment on how the Council of Europe can bring its influence to bear on the conflict in the field of atrocity prevention. This is a crucial moment, and the Council of Europe must not delay or hesitate.
This vast and hugely important subject cannot be dealt with thoroughly in the 90 minutes assigned to us. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the two points I have raised. First, the UK must exert what influence we can on the EU in support of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution from October, encouraging more integration for the western Balkans. Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley could confirm that all parts of the Council of Europe will be particularly active in atrocity prevention in Ukraine, following the recommendation from the IDC report about acting multilaterally.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2015-01-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans NHS England has to respond to patient groups and charities who are concerned about the removal of clinically effective drugs from the Cancer Drugs Fund.
George Freeman
NHS England has advised that a meeting with patient groups and charities was held on 19 January 2015 to provide the context for the changes being made to the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) list, how the review was undertaken by the CDF clinical panel and the results. Attendees had the opportunity to ask questions to provide further clarity.
Information on the outcomes from the review is available on NHS England’s website at:
www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf
and has been circulated to NHS England networks. Clinicians are also being informed via the regional CDF teams.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2015-01-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps NHS England plans to take to ensure that patients and clinicians are aware of the drugs delisted from the Cancer Drugs Fund as announced on 12 January 2015.
George Freeman
NHS England has advised that a meeting with patient groups and charities was held on 19 January 2015 to provide the context for the changes being made to the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) list, how the review was undertaken by the CDF clinical panel and the results. Attendees had the opportunity to ask questions to provide further clarity.
Information on the outcomes from the review is available on NHS England’s website at:
www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf
and has been circulated to NHS England networks. Clinicians are also being informed via the regional CDF teams.
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2014-04-29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make representations to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence regarding its technology appraisal of ipilimumab.
Norman Lamb
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 2 April 2014, Official Report, column 663W.
The speech made by Pauline Latham, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is always an entertaining and informative speaker. When I first came to this place in 2010, I was elected to the International Development Committee, which I have served on ever since. I believe that the Committee has done very good work over those years and I am sure that it will continue to do that good work, as it still exists, about which there was some doubt when DFID was taken over by the Foreign Office. It is really important that the International Development Committee exists, because Members who sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee have little interest in the money that is spent on the poorest of the poor. The scrutiny of the International Development Committee is needed to ensure that the money is being spent as well as it possibly can be. I am horrified by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said about the money that is still being spent in China. There seems to be no sense in that, so I hope that the Minister will address the point in her closing remarks.
I am a bit disappointed, because this is an important debate but there are few Members in the Chamber. That is quite surprising, because there are now quite a lot of Back Benchers; one would think that a few more might come and join us. However, I am very pleased to speak in the debate and glad that we have a whole debate to focus specifically on the FCDO’s international aid work. It was of significant concern to me and others, including the Chair of our Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), when the two Departments “merged”—that was what it was called, but actually I think it was a takeover. We were told that there would not be sufficient focus on the international development angle, so the scrutiny of this House is very welcome.
It would be impossible to discuss the departmental estimates for international development without mentioning our 0.7% spending target, a subject that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield covered extensively. The target was long campaigned for by many hon. Members, including me, and I am deeply disappointed that it has been reduced to 0.5% by the Government. I understand why, but we are talking about the poorest of the poor, who need our help. Obviously, the economy has been hit by the pandemic, but as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, the same pandemic has caused terrible strife all around the world, not just here in the United Kingdom. As a result of the cut, some of the people who most need our assistance will no longer receive it. The sustainable development goals, which we have signed up to, say that we should be helping the poorest of the poor—and there are so many people in the world who are incredibly poor.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned that the Chancellor had said that we would go back to 0.7% in two years. My right hon. Friend himself believes that we should make it 0.6% next year and 0.7% the year after. There is logic in that, but I think that he was referring to the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). We do not know what the current Chancellor wants, so our Committee needs to press him by inviting the Foreign Secretary before us and asking her what will happen. It is important that we, and the people we are trying to help, know what we will be doing.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about very important matters. As she says, there are a significant number of very poor people in the world and we have a duty to support them. Will she address the issue of the Government mis-badging some forms of spending, for example by counting defence spending or other departmental spending towards the aid target? That seems to me to be a mistake and to be unfair on the very poorest people in the world.
Mrs Latham
That is a very important point that our Select Committee absolutely needs to scrutinise, because it would be illegal to badge that spending wrongly. We have a duty to ensure that our taxpayers know that our spending is transparent and in the right place. It is really important that we do not mis-badge it, because otherwise we will lose the trust of a lot of countries around the world.
As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, we know that there will be more and more migration because of climate change. People are not going to stay in a country that is drought-ridden. They cannot feed their cattle. They cannot be the nomads they were before, going off to find fresh pastures and then coming back in a circle, as the nomadic tribes in Kenya used to do. People cannot do that if they have no food for their cattle. For that important reason we need to tackle climate change, but I fear that the reduction to 0.5% means we will have less opportunity to do so, and that means there will be more migration. Indeed, I believe there will be more and more migration, not just for drought and climate change reasons but for reasons of conflict. So many people are fleeing their countries, either because of civil war or because of attempts to annihilate certain populations. They have to escape, because that is the general public’s normal response to terrifying situations.
However, I do not intend to focus on the overall aid budget in my short speech. Instead, I want to comment briefly on the important issue of neglected tropical diseases, including malaria. They are called neglected tropical diseases because people forget about them. A couple of weeks ago, I, too, was in Rwanda for the Kigali summit, which aimed to tackle the problems of malaria and neglected tropical diseases, and which was a very successful event. Governments, the private sector and philanthropists all pledged to help to accelerate the global fight to beat these deadly diseases, with commitments made at the summit totalling more than $4 billion.
However, there is much more to be done. In 2020 alone, an estimated 627,000 people died of malaria—a staggering number. More than 1.7 billion people required treatment and care for neglected tropical diseases over the course of that year. Often, the impact of covid-19 was to disrupt community care and preventive programmes, meaning that the number of people receiving treatment for NTDs fell by 33% in 2020. There is a simple and cheap cure for many of these diseases, and we must not lose sight of that.
While I was in Rwanda, I attended a programme run by the UK-funded National Institute for Health and Care Research about podoconiosis, a neglected tropical disease that causes dreadful pain and suffering, generally among farmers and those who spend a lot of time in contact with irritant soils without wearing shoes. The microbe gets into their bodies and causes them terrible problems. NTDs such as podoconiosis are widespread in huge parts of the world, and funds for research and prevention are needed not only from a humanitarian and ethical perspective, but from an economic one. For those people’s communities and families, these diseases can lead to long-term poverty, hunger and starvation because they can prevent people from working. For example, podoconiosis patients lose 45% of their productive working days to the disease. Research on treatment and prevention can keep people economically active, and able to maintain their lifestyles and their jobs.
Investment in tackling NTDs—that is just one small example—and malaria has huge positive knock-on effects throughout the local economy. The UK funding is providing real benefit for podoconiosis patients through research into treatment options, genetic research, education and more, enabling sufferers to live healthier, happier and more productive lives. I urge the Minister to consider people who suffer from the disease, because it is horrendous.
The UK has a strong legacy of investment in the elimination and control of NTDs—it is supporting the Rwandan Government’s ambition to eliminate podoconiosis by 2024—and it is critical that we maintain that legacy. This is an example of the UK helping the world’s poorest to live happy, healthy, economically active lives. That helps the economy and the education of women and girls, giving them the good future that many do not have at the moment. That programme in Rwanda has been funded, but others have been hit by the international development funding cuts. For example, the Ascend programme countries still need support to reach their elimination goals.
I encourage the Minister to consider the forthcoming year’s spending and to invest as much as we can in NTDs, and in particular in preventing malaria. That is doable; we can eliminate malaria, and it is so important that we contribute significantly to that. The shift in spending under the international development strategy away from multilateral programmes and towards bilateral funding threatens many of the programmes that aim to combat NTDs and malaria. I would therefore be delighted if the Minister could today confirm an ambitious commitment to the forthcoming seventh replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and neglected tropical diseases.
The speech made by Pauline Latham, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, at Westminster Hall on 27 April 2022.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Derby’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Efford. I also warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. The beauty of being a Back Bencher, with no ministerial responsibility—I have to add that I have never wanted that responsibility—is that we can do anything that we want to do. We can campaign for things that matter to us and we can be successful—sometimes—in those campaigns. Yesterday I was delighted to hear the Third Reading in the House of Lords of my Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, and we should get Royal Assent today or tomorrow, so that is a tremendous success for a Back Bencher. I have been passionate about that issue for many years, so it was a great delight to do that. Another of my passions was to get Derby designated the city of culture. Sadly, I failed miserably on that. As a team in Derby, we campaigned together, but we did not make it.
My other campaign is to get the Great British Railways headquarters to Derby. I have been talking about that for some time in Parliament and I am passionate that Derby is the right place for it to be situated. Sadly, we do not have many right hon. and hon. Members with us today to take part in this debate—probably because the House sat so late last night and 9.30 on a Wednesday morning is not people’s favourite time to come in—but I am passionate about the headquarters coming to Derby. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established the competition, which he announced last year, to find the place that will host the headquarters of Great British Railways. Derby has submitted its bid and is eagerly waiting to find out whether it will succeed in making it through to the second round. Then there will be even more lobbying, but with a much-anticipated public vote.
I firmly believe, as you would expect, Mr Efford, that Derby is the right location for the headquarters. There are many reasons why it is an important place for Great British Railways and why the Minister and the Secretary of State should choose Derby for its headquarters. First, Derby is at the centre of the UK’s rail network. It has great connections north and south, from Scotland to London and beyond, and, crucially, east and west, offering a key path from the east midlands to the west midlands and Wales, as well as to the east coast.
Secondly, Derby has so much rail history. Derby station first opened in 1839, as one of the largest in the United Kingdom, when Derby was home to the world’s first factory and the Midland Railway. As soon as the railway arrived in Derby, the rail industry set up shop there, too. Derby locomotive works was constructed in 1840 and, in the years that followed, nearly 3,000 steam engines were built. The first ever roundhouse, for turning engines, was built by Robert Stephenson in Derby. It is part of what is now Derby College. [Interruption.] I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). From 1934, Derby produced diesels, and then in 1947 it built Britain’s first main-line diesel locomotives. Now, we are at the forefront of developing alternative train-based power sources that complement the progressive roll-out of electrification. HydroFLEX, Britain’s first train converted to hydrogen operation, was designed in Derby by Porterbrook.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her dedication to all the subject matter on which she has delivered the legislation coming through on marriage. I support that and was very pleased to see it. I also commend her for her work in this area. Connectivity is critical but does she agree that that is also true of the private sector, of which I believe Derby has a large proportion? Connectivity is part of the pursuit of the headquarters of Great British Railways, but the partnership with the private sector is crucial to advancing it.
The hon. Lady mentioned hydrogen. We in Northern Ireland have some connections with hydrogen and we are pleased that she is promoting it. All I know about Derby is that it has a football team that is in trouble, but I am pleased to come here and support the hon. Lady.
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It never fails to amaze me how the hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland can have an interest in what is happening in Derby. It is very important that we include the whole of the United Kingdom and work with all of it when and if we get the Great British Railways in Derby. It is important that Northern Ireland, Scotland and all the other regions are included, so I thank him for that intervention.
Alstom, which has had various names and iterations, is the current train building company in Derby, and it plans to build the first brand-new fleet of hydrogen trains in conjunction with Eversholt Rail. Similarly, Porterbrook and Rolls-Royce recently launched the first 100 mph hybrid battery-diesel train on Chiltern Railways, which links London with Oxford and Birmingham. It is very important that we look to our history, but that we also look to the future of the Great British Railways and rail innovation.
Derby is at the heart of rail innovation. It is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a compelling case for Derby very effectively. Does she agree with me that Great British Railways would benefit from that innovation that she was starting to talk about? Derby’s rail industry is famous for the revolutionary tilting trains that have gone on to be hugely successful. They were first developed in Derby as a result of the technological know-how of the British Rail research team, and that expertise continues in our universities in both Derby and Nottingham. I believe that, at one point in the 1970s, the team also developed plans for a flying saucer. Is that not precisely the kind of innovative, radical thinking that Great British Railways needs?
Mrs Latham
We have the expertise in Derby and it is important that we spread it around. If the Great British Railways comes to Derby, it will benefit Nottingham and other counties, including Staffordshire and Leicestershire, because we are quite a tight-knit community. There are so many innovative companies based in and around Derby that it will have a knock-on benefit for so many people and the local economy. It is really important, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that we have thriving private businesses working with Government organisations. Working together, they can achieve so much more. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
We continue to be the home of rail research, as has been said. In 1935, the LMS Scientific Research Laboratory was established in Derby, which evolved into British Rail’s globally recognised Railway Technical Centre that opened in 1964, and that tradition of innovation continues today through special rail consultancies, dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises, and the University of Derby’s rail research and innovation centre, so there is a host of reasons why the Minister must choose Derby.
Derby is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation. There are more than 11,000 rail sector employees in Derbyshire, spanning operations, design, manufacture, testing, safety, data and finance. Nowhere else in the whole country can we design, test and manufacture a train all on the same site. Not only that, but alongside the University of Derby, our rail industry is leading the way on rail decarbonisation—a huge part of our country’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050. In addition to these practical reasons why Derby is the best choice, I would like to talk about the longer-term impact of such a decision, and how it fits in with the Government’s policy aims. First, for GBR, choosing Derby brings the opportunity to engage more closely than ever with the private sector. Last year, the Williams-Shapps plan for rail laid out clearly the Government’s intention for GBR to work ever more closely with the private sector, learning lessons and fostering innovation.
As I have explained, there is no better place for interaction with the private sector than Derbyshire, whether seeking to collaborate with the largest rail companies in the land, or to learn from and help to develop the most innovative engineering or railway technology businesses. I know I need not repeat, for the Minister has heard me make the point many times, that Derby is home to the largest private sector rail industry cluster in Europe, and the associated benefits that that would bring to our public sector rail body.
The east midlands is the rail capital of the UK, with a global reputation for excellence. I would like to quote the Government’s rail sector deal:
“The east midlands is one of the largest rail clusters in Europe…The success of UK rail will owe much to the successful nurturing of these clusters.”
In the recently published levelling-up White Paper, the midlands rail cluster is referred to as one of the largest in the world, incorporating rail operations, research and innovation, digital applications, manufacturing, technical services and finance.
Derby and Derbyshire, along with the whole of the east midlands, are often left behind when it comes to public funding. Levelling up is a phrase we have heard a lot recently, and it is really important for Derby. We have heard Ministers and the Prime Minister talking about it, but I would like to see it delivered for Derby. We must be clear that levelling up is about taking advantage of the talents and skills all around the country, not just about giving a handout. That is why bringing GBR to Derby really is levelling up. Placing the headquarters of Great British Railways at the heart of the largest railway cluster in Europe is an example of the Government taking advantage of the amazing skillset and industry knowledge that we have in abundance in the east midlands, which for so long have been overlooked.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has been wide-reaching in the debate for Derby, but we can all take advantage. The Government and the Minister have given their commitment to levelling up across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady referred to that, which I fully support. Within that levelling up, there may be opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to buy into the levelling up that Derby can take advantage of. Does the hon. Lady feel that, when it comes to securing the Union, which we can do as we are all committed to that, levelling up is part of that process?
Mrs Latham
It is important that levelling up works for the whole country, and that we genuinely level up. We need a lot of levelling up in our region, and it is important for the Government to do what they say.
Alongside that, we will have the opportunity for many apprentices and to improve skills we already have. It is amazing that at Alstom, which builds the trains, there are some fantastic female apprentices. They are not straight from school; they have worked outside and come in as apprentices. They are so passionate about building trains and making it right. We have the workforce who want to do the job. With Great British Railways, and all the other businesses in Derby, we could provide an apprenticeship for everybody, because there are so many opportunities with so many different businesses in the area. It is incredibly important—
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. People may think it is slightly strange that someone from Nottingham is supporting Derby, but it is important to take a view of the whole of our region. Does she agree that if Great British Railways were based in Derby, which of course is a key city of the east midlands, its employees travelling there would see that it is on a north-south line that is not fully electrified, and that, at the moment, we have very poor east-west connections to Birmingham and the west midlands? That might remind them every single day of the importance of the levelling up that she is talking about and the need for more investment in our transport network.
Mrs Latham
That is absolutely right. The people who come to work for Great British Railways will see the benefits of what we do in Derby and across the region, and that we need better links. We have links, but we need better ones. It is no good looking at places such as Birmingham, which has huge innovation and lots of other businesses, and does not specialise in rail. Derby specialises in rail, so locating Great British Railways there would have a huge impact on the economy and the area. That will add to the levelling up agenda, and Nottingham will benefit from that. Cities need to play to their strengths. Nottingham has different strengths, and Derby’s greatest strength is the rail industry, as well as Rolls-Royce aero-engines, the nuclear sector and Toyota. We have planes, trains and automobiles in our area, and huge skills in engineering, which are very important. Lots of people from Nottingham work in Derby, and vice versa, because there are opportunities for different industries to employ people.
Lilian Greenwood
I should not allow the impression to be given that there are not fantastic rail engineering companies in Nottingham. LB Foster in my constituency produces rail technologies, rail lubrication and friction modification. It has worked on Crossrail, and produced the original boards at St Pancras station. That technology is spread across the midlands, although Derby is very much at the heart of the industry.
Mrs Latham
Of course, that is true. The hon. Lady talks about local companies being involved in St Pancras station, and the bricks that were used there came from Butterley in Derbyshire, so we are steeped in the rail industry—from the construction of buildings, right through to the construction of trains and all the engineering in between.
The Minister may not be aware that Derby was home to Britain’s first railway staff training college, which opened in 1938. It is now known as the Derby Conference Centre. That amazing, beautiful building has been repurposed, but it was the heart of the railway staff training college, which is very important to Derby.
Derby’s bid is supported not just by Derby’s MPs, or even Derbyshire MPs. I am delighted by the support that colleagues from across the region have given to our bid. They not only recognise that Derby is the best location for the Great British Railways headquarters, but know that it will benefit GBR, Derby and the wider region in the long term. Some of those colleagues are here today. I would have liked to have said many, but the late night means that not many are here.
I remind the Minister of all the right hon. and hon. Members who have already publicly pledged their support for the bid, demonstrating their support for Derby and levelling up in the east midlands. First, there are the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) and for South Derbyshire. Then there are all the other Derbyshire MPs from across parties. Several are Ministers so cannot speak in this debate, but I know that they have expressed their support to the Minister through other channels. We have also received support from outside Derbyshire. There have been key contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is a former Chair of the Transport Committee and was shadow Transport Secretary for a long time, so understands the industry in the area. Also supporting us are my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—who is also leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, which is important because it is fully behind us—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). That is a formidable amount of parliamentary support. It is not just Derby Members who want it. The support stretches across four counties and at least six upper-tier authorities representing the entire east midlands region.
We have over 11,000 highly skilled people in rail-related employment across the east midlands, with around 45,000 jobs connected to the rail industry delivering train building and refurbishment, infrastructure maintenance and renewals, operations, digital technology, safety management, specialist finance and other key roles.
The thing about Derby is that, compared with other cities in the region, we do not have many civil servants based in our city or indeed in the county. There is one very small rail industry body, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, but apart from that we have very few. If we are talking seriously about levelling up, it means bringing in Great British Railways to take part in this wider rail industry in Derby, Derbyshire and across to Nottinghamshire.
It is very important that GBR comes to Derby, because it would cement the whole of the rail industry. It would benefit from working with the private sector and learning about all the different private businesses there, as well as our huge innovation. A lot of apprentices go from Derby College into the rail industry. The university also works very hard with the rail industry. It is such a key place, and not just for history. History is important, but it is about the future.
The first railway cottages in the world are in Derby. They were saved by the Derbyshire Historic Building Trust many years ago. They were going to be bulldozed to make way for a four-lane motorway through the centre of Derby, which would have been crazy. These beautiful railway cottages are genuinely the oldest in the world. We have history, but we also have the innovation. We have the will of the people in Derby. I hope that the public vote will show that they really care about the railway industry in Derby. Another part of the jigsaw is to bring Great British Railways to Derby.