Oral Answers to Questions
Steven Bonnar Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Since the barbaric terrorist acts by Hamas against Israel on 7 October and the subsequent conflict in the region, the Government have been monitoring the situation very closely. The UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that that is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Export licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to amend licences or refuse new licence applications if they are inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria.
Kemi Badenoch
I do not believe that is something that I am able to do or should do. I can tell the hon. and learned Lady that last year we granted 114 standard individual export licences for military goods valued at £42 million to Israel. If there is a specific issue that she would like to highlight, we are prepared to look at it, but she will know that security and defence exports are not necessarily best discussed on the Floor of the House or in public, for obvious reasons.
Steven Bonnar
A state that supplies military equipment that is used in the commission of violations of international humanitarian law is at risk of complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe. In continuing with those licences and supplying UK arms to Israel, what assessment does the Secretary of State make of the potential for UK Government complicity, if Israel is found to have committed war crimes in Gaza by the ongoing International Criminal Court investigation?
Kemi Badenoch
I am quite surprised that there is not a word of condemnation, and the implication that the UK is complicit is really not the sort of thing we would expect from a British Member of Parliament in this House. I completely disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government take our defence export responsibilities extremely seriously and operate some of the most robust and transparent export controls in the world.
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Steven Bonnar Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this debate, which has become something of an annual event in the calendar. It is very important that we have it.
I want to let the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) know that I agree with everything he said. In terms of coroner inquiries for stillbirths at full term, in Scotland we have fatal accident inquiries. Although it is devolved, it was one of the calls I made when I secured the first ever debate on stillbirth in this place in 2016. There is still a job of work to do to get us to where we want to be in that regard.
I always want to participate in this debate every year because I think it is an important moment—a very difficult moment, but an important one—in the parliamentary calendar. It is significant that the theme this year is the implementation of the findings of the Ockenden report in Britain, because that report was very important. We all remember concerns raised in the past about neonatal services in East Kent and Morecambe Bay, and the focus today on the work undertaken by Donna Ockenden in her maternity review into the care provided by Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust really matters.
Donna Ockenden is currently conducting an investigation into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. That comes in the wake of the fact that in the past, concerns have been raised about a further 21 NHS trusts in England with a mortality rate that is over 10% more than the average for that type of organisation, with higher than expected rates of stillbirth and neonatal death.
To be clear, I do not for one minute suggest that this is not a UK-wide problem, as I know to my personal cost. As the Minister will know, concerns remain that, despite a reduction in stillbirths across the UK, their number is still too high compared with many similar European countries, and there remain significant variations across the UK. Those variations are a concern. We know that they could be, and probably are, exacerbated by the socioeconomic wellbeing of communities. We know that inequality is linked to higher stillbirth rates and poorer outcomes for babies. Of course, the quality of local services is also a huge factor, and this must continue to command our attention.
When the Ockenden report was published earlier this year, it catalogued mistakes and failings compounded by cover-ups. At that time, I remember listening to parents on the news and hearing about what they had been through—the stillbirths they had borne, the destruction it had caused to their lives, the debilitating grief, the lack of answers and the dismissive attitude of those they had trusted to deliver their baby safely after the event. I do not want to again rehearse the nightmare experience I had of stillbirth, but when that report hit the media, every single word that those parents said brought it back to me. I had exactly the same experience when my son, baby Kenneth, was stillborn on 15 October 2009—ironically, Baby Loss Awareness Day.
That stillbirth happened for the same reasons that the parents described in the wake of the Ockenden report. Why are we still repeating the same mistakes again and again? I have a theory about that, which I will move on to in a moment. It was entirely down to poor care and failings and the dismissive attitude I experienced when I presented in clear distress and pain at my due date, suffering from a very extreme form of pre-eclampsia called HELLP syndrome. I remember all of it—particularly when I hear other parents speaking of very similar stories—as though it were yesterday, even though it is now 14 years later. I heard parents describing the same things that happened to me, and I am in despair that this continues to be the case. I hope it is not the case, but I fear that I will hear this again from other parents, because it is not improving. I alluded to that in my intervention on the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and I will come back to it.
While I am on the issue of maternal health, expectant mothers are not being told that when they develop pre-eclampsia, which is often linked to stillbirths, that means they are automatically at greater risk of heart attacks and strokes. Nobody is telling them that they are exposed to this risk. I did not find out until about five years after I came out of hospital. Where is the support? Where is the long-term monitoring of these women? This is another issue I have started raising every year in the baby loss awareness debate. We are talking about maternal care. We should be talking about long-term maternal care and monitoring the health of women who develop pre-eclampsia.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very personal speech, and I am sure we are all listening intently. Will she join me in paying tribute to the wonderful charity that serves my constituency, Baby Loss Retreat, based in Glasgow? It is helping people through the most traumatic of times and making a real difference to families. Will she join me and that charity in calling on this place and the Government here to make available a register for certification for babies who are lost within 24 weeks of pregnancy? That has already been implemented by the Scottish Government, and it means so much to families who are coming to terms with such loss at a tragic time.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I can see that the Minister was listening carefully, and I am sure she will want to take that back to her colleagues in Cabinet who can take the action that would allow parents who want a certificate before 24 weeks to have one. I also share his view about the importance of the charitable work that is done to support not only mums and dads but grannies and grandfathers when a stillbirth happens, providing them with the local, sensitive support that they need, because it is not always forthcoming from the NHS. When people try to regroup after this kind of loss, that ongoing support in the community is really important.
We are seeing too many maternity failings, and now deep concerns are being raised about Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. I understand that the trust faces a criminal investigation into its maternity failings, so I will not say any more about it. The problem is that when failures happen—and this, for me, is the nub of the matter—as they did in my case at the Southern General in Glasgow, now renamed the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, lessons continue to be not just unlearned but actively shunned. I feel confident that I am speaking on behalf of so many parents who have gone through similar things when I say that there is active hostility towards questions raised about why the baby died. In my case, I was dismissed, then upon discharge attempts were made to ignore me. Then I was blamed; it was my fault, apparently, because I had missed the viewing of a video about a baby being born—so, obviously, it was my fault that my baby died.
It was then suggested that I had gone mad and what I said could not be relied upon because my memory was not clear. To be absolutely clear, I had not gone mad. I could not afford that luxury, because I was forced to recover and find out what happened to my son. I have witnessed so many other parents being put in that position. It is true that the mother is not always conscious after a stillbirth. Certainly in my case, there was a whole range of medical staff at all levels gathered around me, scratching their heads while my liver ruptured and I almost died alongside my baby. Indeed, my husband was told to say his goodbyes to me, because I was not expected to live. This level of denial, this evasion, this complete inability to admit and recognise that serious mistakes had been made that directly led to the death of my son and almost cost my own life—I know that is the case, because I had to commission two independent reports when nobody in the NHS would help me—is not unusual. That is the problem. That kind of evasion and tactics are straight out of the NHS playbook wherever it happens in the UK, and it is truly awful.
I understand that health boards and health trusts want to cover their backs when things go wrong, but if that is the primary focus—sadly, it appears to be—where is the learning? Perhaps that is why the stillbirth of so many babies could be prevented. If mistakes cannot be admitted when they are made, how can anyone learn from them? I have heard people say in this Chamber today that we do not want to play a blame game. Nobody wants to play a blame game, but everybody is entitled to accountability, and that is what is lacking. We should not need independent reviews. Health boards should be able to look at their practices and procedures, and themselves admit what went wrong. It should not require a third party. Mothers deserve better, fathers deserve better, and our babies certainly deserve better.
Every time I hear of a maternity provision scandal that has led to stillbirths—sadly, I hear it too often—my heart breaks all over again. I know exactly what those parents are facing, continue to face, and must live with for the rest of their lives—a baby stillborn, a much-longed-for child lost, whose stillbirth was entirely preventable.
Football and Dementia
Steven Bonnar Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I believe has a wee soft spot for one of the Glasgow teams, and not Partick Thistle.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important subject, given that so many young people across these islands partake in football-related activity on a regular basis. I thank all Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions. It is clear that we all love the game of football, but it is also clear that we want improvements in this area for former footballers.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not only on securing such an important debate, but on his informed contribution. He knows, as I do, that this issue is keenly felt in Scotland, with high-profile public campaigns from the families of those affected, as well as world-leading pioneering research carried out in our Scottish universities. Such research undertaken by the University of Glasgow has found that professional footballers are three and a half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative diseases than the general population—three and a half times more likely to die of dementia, Alzheimer’s or other associated diseases. A previous study from the same university in 2021 found that defenders are five times more likely to develop dementia than the general population are.
Those of us who have played the game at any sort of level—competitive or otherwise—or who are just passionate about the sport will know that heading the ball is an art form in itself and an intrinsic part of the game. It is a skill that not many who play the game can fully master: a mighty last-ditch clearance by a committed defender; a leap and flick on to the back post; or my own favourite, the diving header goal—a majestic sight. These studies show us that they are also dangerous. That is why we must be confident that we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of all the young people who enjoy football today, to protect their health now, in the long term and in later life.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Billy McNeill was one such defender—a man with a glittering playing career in the game. He always comes to mind when discussing dementia in football. He was a hero to many, myself included. Born in Bellshill, he was the first man from the United Kingdom to put his hands on the European cup and hold it aloft. He was world-renowned for his heading capabilities. In 2017 his family announced he was suffering from dementia, and in 2019 he sadly passed away. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude to the Billy McNeill Commemoration Committee in Bellshill for the fantastic work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness of Billy’s life and of dementia in football, and in ensuring that the story of the great Billy McNeill will be told for generations to come.
A study published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, jointly funded by the SFA and the Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland, compared the causes of death of more than 7,000 Scottish male former professional footballers born before 1976 against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population. It was the first to definitively identify a link between football and dementia. Responding to those findings back in 2019, the head of Alzheimer Scotland welcomed the findings of the team led by Dr Willie Stewart, stating that they provided
“what can only be described as conclusive evidence that there is a definitive link between playing professional football and a higher incidence of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.”
Like many colleagues, I met Tony Higgins of the PFA Scotland—and of Hibernian folklore—here in Parliament a few months back, and heard about the real-life examples of former footballers facing ill health. The PFA Scotland is committed to this issue not only through funding excellent studies such as the one I mentioned, but by investing in long-term aftercare for former footballers and their families, many of whom played the game at the very highest level but in an era that did not bring the financial rewards or comforts that many of today’s players enjoy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech, among many powerful and important speeches, about a sport that we all love. We have talked a lot about professional and elite football, but when it comes to the young—I declare an interest, as my nephew plays junior football—there is not the same financial reward, but the same danger is involved in heading a football. Do we need to take a much broader approach and ensure that those at all levels, right down to youth football, are encouraged to tell players about the dangers?
Steven Bonnar
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Boys and girls of five and six in young and junior football are the professional players of tomorrow. We need to protect them right the way throughout their involvement in the game, because that will be for the benefit of all. Football brings so much joy and goodness to our communities—we all know that—but we must safeguard our young players.
A study in Sweden published earlier this year, which has been mentioned, concluded that male football players who had played in the Swedish premier league had
“a significantly increased risk of neurodegenerative disease compared with population controls. The risk increase was observed for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias…and among outfield players, but not among goalkeepers.”
That further solidifies what we know about the game and what the Scottish studies told us. The risks have been known for several years now. Studies as early as 2017 showed the greater risk of dementia among pro footballers, particularly defenders. No time should be wasted in moving forward with further research to properly define the main risk factors and what must be done to minimise them. But we are not much further forward at all from 2017. It is unfortunate that despite evidence having been available on this issue for several years, we are still to see more concrete action taken. There have, of course, been some changes in light of those studies, such as children younger than 11 not being taught to head the ball in training conducted by the SFA, but is that really going far enough? Another way to look at that statistic is that we are still currently allowing children aged 11, 12 and 13 to persistently head the ball in training.
Another progressive step, it could be said, is the introduction of concussion substitutions in the English premier league, a new rule that allows for a permanent substitution to be made if a player suffers a head injury. The new rule was approved in January 2021. So far, I am aware of only one attempted use of the rule so far in England. However, there was an error in the paperwork which meant that the concussion substitute could not in fact be utilised. It was interesting to hear comments about that from Tottenham Hotspur manager, Ange Postecoglou. If we are going to do this right, we must ensure that safety, not paperwork, is the most important thing. I know of no concussion substitutions taking place in Scotland yet, although we have adopted the five substitutions rule—up from the previous three subs per match. That encourages managers to use a substitution should a player take a knock to the head during a match.
Other advice on heading the ball seems to be limited. While lighter footballs are now commonplace, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out, they travel a lot faster and are hit a lot harder in the modern game. We must ensure we do everything we possibly can to protect young individuals now, as well as in later life.
Some campaigners have been calling for a complete ban on the practice of heading the ball to eliminate the increased risk of dementia among footballers. We have all heard about the love we have for the game today. I do not know how that is manageable or workable in the professional game. As I said, heading the ball is an intrinsic part of the match. Some will tell us that rugby, mixed martial arts and boxing also come with heightened health risks—there is the potential for serious injury, and perhaps even fatality. That is undeniable. There must always be a balancing of the sport against the risk. We as legislators and those who govern the game should always seek to make things safer wherever we possibly can.