Business of the House
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Community pharmacies, as the hon. Lady rightly says, play a very important part in ensuring that health services are in the community and provide preventive support for local communities. That is why the Government are rebuilding our NHS. Community pharmacies will play a very important part in that. There is a debate next week on fixing the NHS, where I am sure the Health Secretary will be keen to hear her thoughts about community pharmacies.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In Sudan, 25.6 million people are facing acute hunger, 10.7 million people have been displaced since last year, and the World Food Programme is saying that it is a race against time to stop the famine from escalating. It is a very grave situation, so can we have a debate in Government time to put a spotlight on what is happening in Sudan and the UK’s response?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter and I think that is why Mr Speaker granted an urgent question on it earlier this week. There is a lot of interest in this House and it was raised with the Prime Minister yesterday at Prime Minister’s question time. We continue to monitor the situation very closely. I will ensure, as I always do, that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister and Secretary of State do come to the House regularly to update us on these matters.
Business of the House
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
This is a Government of service, and we are working hard to turn the page on an era of scandal and sleaze under the previous Government. We expect the very highest standards of all those in government, which is why we quickly brought in measures such as raising standards and expectations for MPs, raising standards and expectations for Ministers, being completely transparent about declarations, and ensuring that all the proper processes for appointments are followed at all times. We will continue to do that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have stated and rightly continue to state that prevention will protect our NHS and protect lives. Being cold at home can lead to stroke, heart attack, hypothermia, pneumonia and other such illnesses. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Government to read the work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot and Sir Chris Whitty in this area so that we can take a public health approach to people being warm at home to mitigate the cost that could come without the right mitigations on winter fuel payments?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for continually raising these important matters. The decision to means-test winter fuel payments was not one that any of us wanted to take. It was a decision that we had to take to balance the books. As we have just discussed, it is those on the lowest incomes who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes and the real cost of living goes through the roof. That is why delivering on living standards, getting growth in our economy, delivering lower energy bills and getting energy independence are core to the Government’s agenda. That is what we will see over the Parliament.
Business of the House
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and I am sorry to hear of the tragic circumstances in her constituency. This Government are committed to tackling issues around firearms—not just the symptoms, but the root causes, as she says—and there will be ample time to discuss these matters. Of course, there will be Home Office questions next week, where she may want to raise these matters further.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Hundreds of thousands of people will be visiting my fantastic city of York over the summer. However, many of them will be staying in short-term holiday lets, with one in 10 properties in the city centre being Airbnbs. Can we have a debate about how this Government will not just register Airbnbs, but license them, so that local authorities can control their housing stock?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that affects many cities, such as my own and hers. This Government have a manifesto commitment to look at these issues and take action as soon as we can, and I am sure that she will be able to raise them with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary in oral questions as soon as we come back on 2 September.
Business of the House
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I think the hon. Member may misunderstand the policy in this area. This Government have made it clear that we are unashamedly pro-house building. We have to tackle the housing crisis in this country and meet the target of 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, and I think that his party also pledged to deliver that target in the election campaign. As he knows, the Conservatives in government withdrew the house building targets, which then reduced figures. What we are not proposing here is a developer free-for-all. This is about good, sensible, clear local plans being drawn together and then expedited with things moving more quickly. I can reassure him on that, but frankly we will take no lectures from the Opposition on dealing with the housing crisis.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When it comes to children with special educational needs, children who have experienced trauma in their childhood or children with anxiety, local authorities carry all the risk, but do not have the resources. Our academy system is out of control and our health services are insufficient. Can we have a debate on children who experience such challenges in their early years to ensure that we address this issue early on in this Government?
Lucy Powell
May I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place? She was always vocal and committed in the last Parliament, and I have no doubt she will be so again in this Parliament. As she rightly points out, our education and care systems are not meeting the needs of children with special educational needs, often leaving them without the support they need to thrive. That is one of the issues being tackled in our children’s wellbeing Bill, announced by His Majesty the King yesterday. As she will have heard this morning, there will be a debate on education in the business next week.
Charity-funded Medical Research
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), my near neighbour, on securing this extremely important and well-timed debate. We have heard some good and compelling speeches from across the board, from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). We are all making similar arguments.
By way of opening, we have heard many debates over recent weeks, both here and in the main Chamber, about the sectors and parts of our society that have been drastically hit by the consequences of the covid-19 crisis. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd on bringing forward the debate because it is an area that has had a lot less attention than some others.
As others have said, as we are all making similar arguments, medical research charities carry out vital work that helps us to understand diseases and find new ways to treat, manage and prevent conditions. They provide that hope and support for many that would otherwise not be there. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd clearly outlined, we have a world-class sector in the UK. From state-of-the-art brain imaging, which helps us learn more about the earlier stages in diseases such as Alzheimer’s, to the development of novel techniques to help revive and repair donor kidneys before transplantation, and to the study of data to help speed up cancer diagnosis, medical research is changing lives, especially with some of the rare diseases that we have discussed today.
During the covid crisis, charity funding has plummeted, which has had a stark and immediate knock-on impact on medical research, as we have heard. Charities are projecting that it will take more than four years for spend to return to pre-crisis levels. With a big chunk of around half of all medical research coming from charities, we must not underestimate the impact that will have and continue to have on the health and wellbeing of our country for many years to come.
The UK sector is facing an existential crisis, yet, like so many other sectors, it has unfortunately so far been excluded from specific Government support. Medical research charities predict a shortfall in spend over the next year of at least £310 million. Research by the IPPR reveals that medical research charities expect this year to lose 38% of fundraising income, and over 25% next year. The thinktank estimates that there will be a cumulative £7.8 billion shortfall in health research and development investment between now and 2027, or 10% of all UK health R&D.
What does that mean in practical terms? As we have heard in the debate, there is, first, the immediate impact on medical trials and research and on patients and all those affected by disease. Almost three quarters of clinical trials and studies funded by AMRC charities were either scrapped or mothballed during the first lockdown, and although some have been picked since, many have not. Medical studies to be cancelled or stalled include those tackling the UK’s biggest killers—dementia, coronary heart disease and cancer—which could have long-term consequences. The Stroke Association states that three quarters of its funded research projects have been suspended because of the pandemic.
In the long term, less money for medical research means fewer trials and studies and fewer patients able to participate in this life-changing work. Last year, 213,000 people took part in 1,200 clinical trials or studies funded by medical research charities. Medical research charities have played a key role in breakthroughs over the past century, and we heard about some of them today.
The second impact is on researchers and the skilled workforce. Medical research investment is used to fund PhD students, fellowships and other early career researchers. Last year, 17,000 researcher salaries were funded by AMRC charities. Less money simply means fewer of them; fewer of them means losing out on their skills and talents, and on the important scientific progress that they could make in the years ahead. It will also further accelerate the unemployment crisis we face. Sadly, a recent AMRC study found that four in 10 are considering leaving research altogether, owing to funding concerns. The same survey found that 61% of charities have had to cut or cancel support for early career researchers and the skilled research roles.
The third impact is on health R&D funding and the wider economy. Nosediving research and development will affect the whole economy. As we have heard, every £1 invested in medical research delivers a return equivalent to roughly an extra 25p on that investment.
Charity research funding stimulates investment from the private sector, as we have heard, and from universities, further boosting our economy and research sector. It is an ecosystem and it relies on all the system being able to play its part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, it can and does play a key role in reducing some regional inequalities and, with more than half of medical research coming from charities outside London and the south-east, in the so-called levelling up agenda by contributing to regional economic growth. Charities have a better record in this respect than Government research funding, under which about 80% goes to the golden triangle. There is definitely an opportunity to switch that balance.
Despite the importance of medical research charities to scientific progress and to people’s lives, and despite the significant role they play in our economy, unfortunately the Government have not given them the support they needed during this difficult time. I understand that there are many pressures on the Government’s finances and many calls for help, but only 3% of the country’s medical research charities were eligible for the Government’s charity support package—just five out of the 152 medical research charities. More than 150 were ineligible, and that included those researching conditions such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, breast cancer, hearing loss, bone cancer, liver disease, meningitis, Crohn’s, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and many more. This is a huge blow to patients who rely on breakthroughs in those treatments.
Fortunately, given the well-timed nature of this debate and where we are today, there is an opportunity tomorrow for the Government to rectify that. The Opposition hope that, in the spending review, the Government will consider the proposal for the life sciences charity partnership to help plug the funding gap. This is now critical and urgent, and in the week when the Oxford vaccine for coronavirus has made such brilliant progress, what better way to support the life sciences in this country and recognise their contribution than to support this partnership fund? It would be a partnership arrangement and there would be matched funding. In the grand scheme of things, £310 million would be an investment well made. It is not a huge amount of money.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the powerful points that my hon. Friend is making. In the light of the amount that has been spent on covid-19 and the fact that people have not been able to access regular services in the NHS, does it not bring into scale how £310 million could make a significant difference?
Lucy Powell
It really does, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I urge the Government to see it, not as day-to-day spend, but as an investment in the future health, resilience, wellbeing and economic viability of the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that we hear some good news from her today.
Further Education
Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lucy Powell(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
The question we should be asking is: what will be the cost of these cuts? People will be getting lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs and drawing down on the state for longer periods of time.
There is excellent sixth-form provision in Greater Manchester, my own area, which is currently undergoing an area review. Winstanley College in Wigan and Loreto College in Manchester provide some of the best value-added in the country, and they outperform schools in getting kids from all backgrounds the highest grades in A-levels. I am sure that Conservative Members would be appalled to think their local sixth-form colleges could be under threat, but this is the reality in other parts of the country. Further massive reductions in funding will result in good sixth-form colleges and good school sixth forms closing. The 25% cut that the Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State’s Department to find is equivalent to the loss of half of all sixth-form colleges and one third of FE colleges.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that FE colleges are further disadvantaged in that they have to pay VAT, whereas free schools and sixth forms do not?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; she is absolutely right.