Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is very interesting to learn of the personal experience of the Minister, but all that I can say at this stage is that he is challenging our vivid imaginations. I was going to call Mr Stringer. Are you still interested, sir? Get in there.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was surprised to find that the charging sockets are not standardised, either on cars or on charging points. Would it not make sense to regulate to standardise them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I should say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that I was speaking at a theatre in Colchester last night and I referenced him in the course of my remarks. Knowing that he is not altogether averse to a focus upon himself from time to time, I think he would have enjoyed my observations.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, if the 2016 referendum is not honoured, a second referendum would have no credibility whatsoever?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The chaos on Northern rail is apparent, but even had there not been the timetabling problems, the Northern rail and trans-Pennine franchises were let on a no-growth basis. Does the Secretary of State now realise that it was a mistake to let rail franchises on a no-growth basis and that it led to road congestion?

[Mr Speaker]

That was an extraordinarily interesting question, but we were supposed to be talking about road congestion.

[Graham Stringer]

I did mention road congestion, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, did you? I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I heard a reference to rail electrification.

[Graham Stringer]

I was pointing out that particular franchises led to road congestion.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, causality, no less.

[Graham Stringer]

Precisely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That sounds like a very agreeable adventure to me. I must obviously add it to my bucket list.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

20. What steps he has taken to implement phase 2b of High Speed 2.

Greece

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That has very little to do with Greece. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but it is nothing to do with the statement today, to the details of which we ought to attend.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Chancellor, in a moderate and balanced statement, said that he respects the Greek decision. That is in sharp contrast to some of the eurocrats and Ministers from other eurozone countries, who have made bullying and intemperate statements to the Greek Government. Will the Chancellor tell the House what steps he and the Prime Minister have taken to stop the same people trying to interfere in our referendum about our future in the European Union?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mike Freer—not here. Richard Graham—not here.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Ofgem.

UK Nuclear Energy Programme

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If we are to mitigate the pressure on time, there must now be a particular premium on brevity in the remaining questions and, of course, in the Secretary of State’s answers.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State uses his fight against climate change and the need to reduce emissions to justify charging twice the market rate for energy, but this country has one of the largest carbon footprints in the world and it is increasing because of emissions input. Why does he not talk about that failure of his policy? Will he tell us what he is going to do about it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. All these matters will be aired further, I am sure.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is true that emissions are down both from this country and in Europe, but the contribution of Europe and the United Kingdom to atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing because of imported manufactured goods. What is the Minister going to do about that?

EU Council

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House will want, without exception, I hope, to hear Mr Graham Stringer.

[Graham Stringer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Europe would not be in the economic and political mess that it is in now if we had not had to wait nearly 40 years before a British Prime Minister came back and said that he or she had used the veto. Can the Prime Minister tell us how, and when, he is going to repatriate some of the powers that have been so carelessly given away?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I appeal to Members not to pass that rather unglamorous specimen around the Chamber? The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to whom I have been generous, should secrete his graphene away, and behave with the tact and discretion for which he was previously renowned.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I beg to disagree, Mr Speaker. Graphene is very glamorous, and it is a fantastic discovery, made in Manchester. The Minister will be aware from his appearances before the Science and Technology Committee that there is a huge imbalance between the public investment in science in the golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London, and investment in the rest of the country. Is this not a great opportunity to invest the vast bulk of that £50 million in Manchester, where the two Nobel laureates discovered graphene?

Musculoskeletal Diseases

Debate between Graham Stringer and John Bercow

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The genesis of this debate was four reports into musculoskeletal disorders from about two years ago. The first was from the National Audit Office, one was the King’s college report, there was another from the umbrella organisation, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, and the final one was the clinical advice from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Those four reports led to an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on 19 January 2010 at column 1WH of the Official Report. I advise the Minister to take a look at that hour and a half debate in which many more points were made than—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting. There are Members behind the Chair making a frightful racket and it should not happen. They should leave the Chamber and show some courtesy to the Member who is developing his speech. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who should now resume.

[Graham Stringer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Many more points were made in that debate than it is possible to make in a half hour debate in this Chamber. What the then Government were essentially being asked was to take action to ensure better clinical outcomes for the money being spent on musculoskeletal disorders. The real ask from the community was for a clinical director or so-called tsar. In a sense, however, the most important ask is not that, but that there is an outcome strategy that improves the outcome for people suffering from musculoskeletal disorders. In many ways, in spite of those four reports and the debates that have taken place since, the situation nationally remains much the same. The statistics are worth going through in some detail. The amount of money spent on musculoskeletal disorders is large—£4.76 billion, which is the fourth-largest category spend within the NHS. That money is spent on 25% of the population as one in four people have a musculoskeletal disorder. That is 9.6 million adults and 12,000 children. Many people think that arthritis and rheumatism affect only older people, but that is not true. They can affect people of any age, as is perfectly illustrated by the fact that 12,000 children suffer from it. In terms of costs, the magnitude of the issue is that one visit in every four to a general practitioner concerns musculoskeletal disorders and 10.8 million working days are lost because of such disorders.

Those are the statistics. The problem is that there is no equality of outcome and no sense that when money is put into the system outcomes improve. About two years ago, partly in response to the reports, the previous Government put £600 million more into the system, but there was no noticeable improvement in outcomes. The NHS atlas of variation shows a threefold difference in spending in different parts of the country, but it does not relate to differences in incidence, prevalence or severity of the problem; nor does it necessarily relate to better outcomes. Although there is a threefold difference generally, the difference for rheumatoid arthritis is five times, for hip replacements 14 times, cemented hips 16 times and for uncemented hips it is 30 times. Clearly something unusual is happening in that area of the service and it requires examination.

Quite simply, current services do not ensure swift treatment of arthritis, which in many cases is vital. I shall give an example from one category of disorder: rheumatoid arthritis. People think it is the same as any other arthritis but it is not; it is an auto-immune disease and few people suffer from it. Many GPs see only one new case every year or so, which is surprising but true. Because GPs do not see such cases regularly, patients often have to visit their GP about three times before they receive treatment, but early treatment is vital. The time before treatment means not only pain but also that the rheumatoid arthritis is not cured. Since a third generation of drugs—the biologics—has been developed, the disease is curable in a large number of cases if treatment is given quickly enough. Even if the disease is not curable, what matters is getting the patient to a multidisciplinary team of physiotherapists, consultant surgeons, doctors and community nurses as quickly as possible.