Industrial Strategy

Debate between Chris White and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris White]

I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman and I have attended some of those very interesting institutions and worked together at Warwick University, one of our leading international universities.

I am pleased that Tata has based its new technology centre in Leamington, which shows what effect inward investment can have on our constituencies and our country. Despite the collaboration—the links between our educational institutions and business, its location and its workforce—how much more could we do as a constituency and as a country if we had the strong foundations of an industrial strategy?

Since working in the automotive sector, I have always had a passion for manufacturing, not least as co-chair of the all-party manufacturing group. I am a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—I am pleased to see its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), in his seat—and we are currently taking evidence on this concept.

We have recently heard evidence from the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the former Member for Twickenham and Lord Heseltine, who all assured us in their own different and special ways that we have had an industrial strategy all along. Perhaps they are right, but I would like to use this speech to say how I think an industrial strategy could be reformed to meet some of the present challenges that we face.

In the last Queen’s Speech debate, I spoke on industrial strategy. I remember that most of the other speakers spoke about sugar tax, an important issue at the time. I must admit that I was not entirely overwhelmed by the Government’s enthusiasm for what I was saying, so no one is more delighted than me to see the inclusion of the words “industrial strategy” in the name of a Department.

There has been a sense of scepticism about industrial strategy. [Interruption.] That was more warmth than I received for my remarks in the Queen’s Speech debate. Industrial strategy has been given negative connotations. Let us consider British economic performance, for example, in the post-war period. Britain’s relatively poor record between 1950 and 1979 has generally been blamed on the lack of competition, with traditional firms being unwilling to adopt technological or process advances. Wilson’s “white heat” of the scientific revolution was replaced by a heavy reliance on the financial sector. Neglect in the past has seen a weakening of our supply chains and a huge shortfall in the skills that a world-class industrial base requires to satisfy both demand and opportunity.

We need to have a strategy and structure in place, a need made even more urgent following the EU referendum. In addition, highly capital-intensive advanced manufacturing requires long-term planning. There is a burden on companies to invest in skills and equipment, and a burden on the state to help create stability for long-term decision making—macroeconomic, fiscal and regulatory.

For manufacturing to grow, an emphasis needs to be placed on encouraging investment and greater long-termism. Although initiatives such as the midlands engine and the northern powerhouse are laudable, they need to be supported by strong tangible policy, and that policy will be less effective if it is piecemeal. For example, capital allowances were popular with industry, but were discrete in their design. A coherent strategy can work for the midlands, the north and the south, driving growth, building economies and providing sustainable employment and the subsequent reduction in community and individual inequalities.

Any new industrial strategy must fit the times we live in, the domestic economy, the global marketplace and developing themes such as Industry 4.0. In September 1965, the then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs produced the national plan, which sought to cover

“all aspects of the country’s economic development for the next five years”.

The plan was more than 450 pages long and looked at everything from the running costs of schools to the future development of the electronics industry. The plan was comprehensive in scope, but our economy no longer operates under such a structure and the plan would have negative consequences if replicated today.

The lack of success of documents such as the national plan does not mean that there should not be a national industrial strategy now for the UK, or that there is not a case for a coherent document to be drafted by the Government, outlining the support that they intend to give the sector and Departments. In countries such as Germany, long seen as a model industrialised nation, there has been little need for the Government to pin down formal strategies or statements because this philosophy is so entrenched and embedded in all activity. In Britain, there has been a tradition of volunteerism when it comes to economic organisation.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in Germany, in the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau—KfW—which has been in place since the late 1940s and provided long-term support to small and medium-sized enterprises, we have a model that could be replicated here, perhaps in the form of a UK investment and development bank?

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but I gently suggest to him that that slightly misses the point. It is just one element of an industrial strategy.

Neglected Tropical Diseases

Debate between Chris White and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour, Mr Williams, to serve under your chairmanship.

I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on neglected tropical diseases. NTDs are a group of diseases that affect more than 1 billion people around the world. They do not have the high profile of malaria, HIV/AIDS or TB—hence the word “neglected”—but they result in disability and death. Even for those who are less seriously affected, they bring chronic conditions that mean loss of income. Such diseases include worms or helminths, schistosomiasis or bilharzia, trachoma, lymphatic filariasis or elephantiasis, and leprosy.

Almost without exception, NTDs are diseases of the poor. They are also curable. The World Health Organisation’s 2010 report found that approximately 90% of their burden can be treated with medicines administered only once or twice a year, and that can sometimes be achieved for as little as 50 US cents. Treating and eradicating those diseases must be at the heart of any programme to tackle poverty. Yet as the title of the debate makes clear, they have been neglected for many years. Institutes such as the Liverpool and London Schools of Tropical Medicine, Imperial College London and the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine, working with researchers and institutes in developing countries, have made great strides in the understanding and treatment of NTDs.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, not least because his knowledge of the matter is well recognised. Does he agree that Members of Parliament have a role in highlighting neglected tropical diseases, making the public, the media and policy makers aware of them, and ensuring that we reduce them because they kill millions of people every year?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that extremely important point. I will come to the reasons why it is important—particularly with regard to efficiency in the use of aid money, which is a major public policy question.

In recent years, Governments, principally in the UK and the USA, have begun seriously to fund work on NTDs. In the UK, this began under the previous Government with an allocation of £50 million. Earlier this year, the Department for International Development announced a further £240 million over four years, which will supply more than four treatments every second for people in the developing world. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for recognising the importance of this work. We are especially fortunate because the Minister—I am delighted that he will respond to this debate—has been a champion in the fight against NTDs, both when he was chairman of the all-party group and subsequently as Minister.

Drug companies have also made a great contribution, working with bodies such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. On the day when the UK announced a fivefold increase in its funding commitment to tackle NTDs as part of a global partnership, all drug companies with NTD drug donation programmes pledged to sustain, extend or increase their programmes to the end of the decade.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline has already donated nearly 2 billion tablets of albendazole for lymphatic filariasis and will continue until elimination is achieved. It is also providing 400 million tablets a year free of charge until 2020 to de-worm school-age children in Africa. Johnson and Johnson is increasing its annual donation of mebendazole to 200 million tablets every year—again, to tackle worms. Novartis is continuing its commitment to providing multi-drug therapy against leprosy in a final push against the disease. Pfizer will continue its donation of drugs for blinding trachoma until at least 2020, as well as donating the drug and a placebo for a study on the reduction in mortality of children treated with that drug. Sanofi, Merck and various other companies are also providing major drug donations.

It is not only drugs that are important, but vaccines. The Sabin Vaccine Institute, in which I declare an interest as a trustee of its UK charitable body, is developing vaccines to treat NTDs around the world.

We have come a long way in tackling such diseases in the past decade. The number of new cases of leprosy reported to the WHO has fallen every year since 2002 from 620,000 to 249,000 in 2008. The number of new cases of human African trypanosomiasis reported to the WHO worldwide fell from 37,000 in 1998 to 10,000 in 2008. However, there is still much to do—and it can be done. Three things are essential. The first is to keep up funding. In the 1960s, malaria was on the retreat, but the world took its eye off the ball and it came back with a vengeance in the 1980s and 1990s. Malaria is now again being tackled, but at a cost of $5 billion to $6 billion a year and after millions of unnecessary deaths.

The lesson is that we need consistency and determination. The UK has rightly decided that eradicating NTDs is one of the best ways to tackle poverty, and we should make that part of our work each year until the work is done. I am not asking for more money. DFID has committed a substantial amount each year for the next four years. However, there should be no uncertainty about future funding. DFID should continue to be a reliable partner over several Parliaments.

At the same time, I should like DFID to encourage other countries to begin or increase support for the work. The USA has been a reliable funder, for which we are grateful. It would be most welcome if it, too, could commit to stable amounts over several years. Then there are donors who have yet to contribute to the work. Will the Minister report on what he is doing to encourage others into the fold?

Secondly, we need to support the countries in which NTDs are endemic, to strengthen their health systems. The most important thing I have learned in the past year as chairman of the all-party group is that it is only through effective grass-roots health systems with committed, trained staff, often backed by community volunteers, that the fight against NTDs is sustainable. One-off treatment campaigns can be effective, and are necessary where systems are weak or do not exist, but the effects will fade unless they are backed up by permanent staff and clinics.

The UK has considerable expertise in working with developing countries to strengthen their health systems, but it is vital that the countries themselves meet their commitments, under the Abuja declaration, to spend 15% of their total budget on health. Few are doing that. I would like the Minister to let hon. Members know what the Government are doing to encourage our partner Governments in those countries to keep to their commitment under the Abuja declaration.

Finally, we need to support research. I have been heartened, as chairman of the all-party group, to see both how closely involved and how generous several pharmaceutical companies have been in tackling NTDs in the way I have outlined. However, we need to work closely with them and the research institutes in the UK and elsewhere to ensure that there is a pipeline of effective drugs for all the relevant diseases. Developing drugs and vaccines and bringing them to market is costly; those who suffer from NTDs cannot afford prices that reflect the cost of the research and development. However, although the market may not justify the cost of R and D, common humanity does, and that is where the British people, through DFID, can make a huge contribution.

We often speak about DFID doing this or the British Government doing that, but it is not they but the British people who are making the work possible, by their commitment to international development. I know that the voices raised against are often loud, but in my constituency of Stafford I have met thousands of people who give up their time and money to support projects around the world—schoolchildren, scouts, guides, community groups, churches and others. When the British people see that it is their support, through donations and taxes, that is helping to improve the lives of millions suffering from NTDs, they should know that they are an essential part of that great endeavour.