Type 1 Diabetes (Young People)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Field

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

From our joint experience on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am well aware that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) has a robustness at times, and perhaps he would have liked to be judge and jury in today’s debate. I congratulate him, above all, on bringing the subject to the House. I am well aware that, as alluded to earlier, these are issues that are very close to his heart, and he speaks with immense knowledge and passion about this particular affliction.

I wish to contribute a few words to the debate, because the subject has been raised a number of times with me at constituency level in recent months. As we have heard, type 1 diabetes is a chronic and life-threatening auto-immune condition, which is caused when the body mistakenly attacks the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. It is a separate and distinct condition from the more common and perhaps more widely known type 2 diabetes.

Estimates put the number of people in the UK with type 1 diabetes at as high as 400,000, which means that each and every MP in the UK has, on average, some 500 constituents suffering with type 1. As recently as 2010-11, it was thought that the direct and indirect cost of type 1 diabetes alone to the UK was around £1.9 billion; judging by the growing rate of increase, it is feared that by 2036 that figure could rise to some £4.2 billion each and every year.

A few months ago, a mother in my constituency wrote to me explaining exactly what life was like, day by day, hour by hour, caring for her young child with type 1 diabetes. She described how her experience reminds her daily of the urgency and importance of finding a cure. My old friend and colleague on Kensington and Chelsea council, Rupert Cecil, has a delightful 10-year-old daughter, whom I have got to know throughout her life; she has similarly suffered from type 1 since infancy and requires constant monitoring. Rupert and his wife, Juliet, have tirelessly raised funds for and awareness of the condition since Polly was diagnosed with this life-threatening and incurable illness at the age of two and a half.

From the outside, Polly is just like any other 10-year-old, but a close look may reveal a wire poking out from under her school uniform and attached to something resembling a money belt. This is the insulin pump that Polly relies on from day to day. It is the artificial pancreas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. She is attached to it each and every day and will be for the rest of her life. Without it, she could not survive longer than 24 hours. In addition to her insulin pump, her parents must test her blood by pricking her finger at least five times a day. They often have to wake her in the middle of the night to give her glucose if her sugar levels have dropped dangerously, or some insulin if they are running high. That is the daily tightrope that is walked by each and every parent of a young child with type 1 diabetes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about his friend’s young child, but many young people, particularly in areas of social deprivation, cannot access insulin pumps unless they buy them, and I believe that they cost around £1,500 or £2,000. If people do not have the money, many of them suffer greatly.

[Mark Field]

That is a fair comment and I hope the Minister will comment on it.

I want to touch on an imaginative and innovative scheme in my constituency at St Mary’s hospital, Paddington, which is part of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and which I visited recently. I hope that it will not only raise awareness, but reduce the cost to which the hon. Gentleman referred. During my recent visit, I discussed the everyday realities for diabetes sufferers.

The International Centre for Circulatory Health is based on the St Mary’s hospital campus of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, just behind Paddington station. Imperial college has published some of the lowest amputation rates in the world from its diabetic foot service, led by Dr Jonathan Valabhji. It has a large diabetes technology centre that is closely linked with a research programme developing closed-loop insulin delivery for type 1 diabetics and novel continuous glucose sensor devices. Its clinical technology research is led by Dr Nick Oliver, who talked me through the pioneering work he is doing to develop the artificial pancreas system for everyone with type 1 diabetes. I hope that that will also reduce the costs to which reference was made earlier.

That ground-breaking research aims to offer the next best thing to a cure for type 1 diabetes patients in the future. I saw for myself how a small, discreet device, connected to the blood stream via micro-needles, can monitor glucose levels. When paired with insulin and glucagon pumps, the artificial pancreas should be able to give diabetics an approximate response to blood sugar levels close to what a body would normally produce. With consistent levels of insulin delivered, sufferers are liberated from the constant monitoring and worrying that comes with the daily management of the disease. The St Mary’s site is just one research centre forming part of a global effort that could help to change the lives of many of the 400,000 people who are living with type 1 diabetes, and save the NHS a significant proportion of the money that is currently spent on treatment.

The artificial pancreas system has three components. Two, the insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor, are available. However people with type 1 diabetes face difficulties trying to access insulin pumps despite a supportive technology appraisal from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Indeed the national uptake of insulin pump therapy stands at just under half the NICE benchmark, set as long ago as 2008, which is extremely low and means the UK is lagging behind many western countries. There seems to be consensus among those working in diabetes research that greater investment from the Government is vital to drive developments in this area. At present, our Government invest less per capita than the US, Australia and Canada in type 1 diabetes research.

I am aware that there is some joined-up thinking, not least by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science, but I would be grateful if the Minister here told us how the Government will work to ensure that the sort of treatment for type 1 diabetes sufferers will be matched up to the level of other western nations, what more can be done to fund pioneering research, and how we can roll out the level of service received by patients at Imperial college to patients throughout the country.

I am pleased that so many hon. Members are here today. We all have our contribution to make and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. The 400,000 sufferers and their many millions of relatives and carers will be cheered that we are treating the issue seriously.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Field

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that 99.9% of taxi drivers, if not more, provide a fantastic service to many of the public. A lot of taxi drivers go beyond their duty, at times. We are not here to have a go at taxi drivers—quite the opposite. We are here to support them and the industry as a whole.

I am not sure why on earth the three new clauses to the Deregulation Bill were tabled. It is beyond me. If it is believed that there is a need for legislation, and if that is contentious, perhaps it is in everyone’s best interest to consult the people who work in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) eloquently said, the Cabinet Office suggests that there should be at least 12 weeks’ consultation for any contentious legislation.

Where was the consultation in the present case? Why has there been none? There were 10 days’ consultation—what on earth was the reason for that? I know the Minister will give a full-hearted answer to that question; I just will not be sure about it. What I am sure about is that when the coalition Government come forward with legislation—particularly to do with the Deregulation Bill—it will never be good news for the people working in an industry. I am positive that that is true about the issue we are debating.

The Law Commission is currently drafting a Bill, which is due by the end of April. Is it not slightly confusing that the Government should have commissioned it to draft that Bill and that before it has even been published they have tabled amendments to the Deregulation Bill? It is fair to ask why those reforms have been made in a rush, as last-minute and very contentious—and questionable—new clauses to the Deregulation Bill. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure that he has the right answers, and we all want to hear that the changes are in everyone’s best interest.

The Minister has ignored everyone who works in the industry—the people in the trade, and the trade unions, which have been asking for meetings to discuss the matter: Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which take the health and safety of the general public seriously. There have been no consultations with the trade unions or the trade. There is just a cabal of people from Government who want to push through legislation against ordinary working people.

I appeal to the Minister to recognise that there is a threat to passenger safety. The Government’s reforms to licences could increase the number of unlicensed drivers. That is something that no one here wants. Unlicensed drivers who can masquerade as legitimate present a huge problem for the general public. I am like anyone else: I have been in the city centre and needed a cab—it need not even be a city centre, but could be somewhere quite isolated. If someone calls for a cab they need to be confident that the driver of the vehicle that comes is a licensed driver for an organisation that they can have full confidence in.

Even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned, someone rolled out of the pub—and there are no MPs who do that, by the way—slightly inebriated at night in the city centre, and there was a taxi there, I am sure they would not knock on the window politely and say, “Excuse me, is this for Mr Ian Lavery of 42 Chiltern close? Sorry, what is your licence number?” That just does not happen. That is why we must ensure that the safety of the public who use the services is paramount.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) raised an important point about subcontracting. There have been problems in the past, and legislation has been passed about disabled people in cabs, which has been positive, to be fair. However, there will be problems. I want to raise the issue of rogue drivers. What problems might arise? Someone—perhaps a disabled person—who did not have confidence in a particular firm might ring another, but if that firm could subcontract without permission, someone from it could turn up in an isolated place to pick up the individual or group. The problems could be immense, and that is not what we want.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My understanding of what the Law Commission is trying to do is not that the broad thrust will be deregulatory at all. In my central London constituency, we have great concern about pedicabs and stretch limousines—two matters that the Law Commission recommends should be brought within the scope of taxi and private hire regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is desirable that the Law Commission should stick to that position and include pedicabs in the scope of regulation, rather than taking a deregulatory approach such as he has described?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and other coalition Members have made similar remarks. It has been suggested that the Law Commission report should be looked at. There has not been any consultation about input into that, and it has not yet been published. People have not yet had the opportunity for input, as the hon. Gentleman was perhaps suggesting they should.