Draft Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 2016.
This technical amendment allows the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to fund its work on e-cigarettes through fee income. The implementation of the tobacco products directive and the specific fee regime to cover regulatory activity undertaken by the MHRA are covered in separate legislation that has been laid before Parliament. The order affects only the MHRA, as it changes very slightly the terms on which the MHRA operates as a trading fund. As an accounting change, it is debated in the House of Commons, but not the House of Lords.
As I said, the fees themselves are the subject of separate legislation. However, the proposed fee levels for the coming year are £150 to notify a new product, £80 to notify a substantial modification to an existing product and a £60 annual fee per notified product starting from 1 April 2017. The fees are set at a level that will enable the MHRA to recover the cost of reviewing information on new products notified through the EU portal and of carrying out subsequent publishing and monitoring work. The fee levels will be reviewed during the first year and regularly thereafter in consultation with the e-cigarette industry, health advisory bodies and the public to ensure that they remain a proportionate and fair recovery of the cost of undertaking that work.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I noticed that the Minister was slightly breathless. I am sure that that has something to do with his exertions yesterday, on which I congratulate him.
The Opposition support the order. We recognise that the technical amendments proposed for the MHRA are required to deal with the regulation of electronic cigarettes, particularly in respect of the revised tobacco products directive.
Despite the continuing long-term decline in the number of smokers over the past few decades, the latest estimates suggest that there are more than 100,000 smoking-related deaths each year, and Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that the cost to the NHS of smoking is between £2.7 billion and £5.2 billion a year.
In August 2015, Public Health England published evidence indicating that e-cigarettes are “95% safer than smoking”, pose
“no risk of nicotine poisoning”
and release “negligible” amounts of nicotine into the environment. The limited research that has been undertaken so far suggests that these products have a role to play in helping smoking cessation. They therefore need to be licensed by the MHRA to allow them to be sold officially as an aid to cease smoking and prescribed by the NHS. It is also important that regulations are in place to ensure that the products meet quality and safety standards.
In July 2015, the Government held a public consultation on implementing the revised tobacco products directive. We welcome the approach that has been adopted following the consultation, including the requirement for e-cigarette manufacturers to submit information to the Government about every product they sell, the requirement for health warnings on packages and the maximum cartridge size of 2 ml. It is also important that manufacturers that wish to supply their products without a medicinal licence will not be permitted to advertise them as an aid to smoking cessation. It should be noted that the regulation is supported by stakeholders such as Action on Smoking and Health, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians.
We welcome the order, but I have some questions that I hope the Minister will address when he responds. First, will he comment on the concern of some health stakeholders, which is identified in paragraph 3.16.7 on page 59 of the response to the consultation, that differences in terminology are beginning to emerge between the UK nations? What steps are the Government taking to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is as little confusion as possible? That is particularly important when there are such rapid developments in these products.
Secondly, we support the use of e-cigarettes as an aid for smokers who are trying to quit, but so far the research has been limited. I hope that the commencement of the order will give us an opportunity to undertake larger-scale studies of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool. Does the Minister intend to review the regulations in this area when more research comes to light? Has there been any assessment of how many patients are likely to be prescribed e-cigarettes? At a time when public health funding is being cut, I am anxious that this should not be seen as a quick fix to plug the gap. Given that the most effective smoking cessation services involve behavioural support in addition to licensed products containing nicotine, it is important that the prescribing of e-cigarettes goes hand in hand with other support and is not seen simply as a replacement for it.
Finally, some health professionals hold that the expansion of e-cigarette use could contribute to smoking becoming normalised again. Does the Minister agree that that is a risk, and what steps is he taking to combat it?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
There is a concern about the operation of the MHRA. The organisation has not been regarded as the ideal body to carry out its functions because it is funded almost entirely by the people it is meant to regulate—the pharmaceutical industry.
There have been serious criticisms concerning the authorisation of a drug called Seroxat, an antidepressant that was found to cause or increase suicides among people who took it in its earliest days. When the MHRA went to investigate, it set up a committee and had to close it down six months later because a majority of its members were employed by the pharmaceutical industry, so the restriction on the use of Seroxat was delayed for a long time.
The main criticism of the organisation is that it is set up to police itself. In other countries, principally Italy, Governments have set up fully independent, free-standing bodies operated by a levy on the pharmaceutical industry, but not controlled by the industry. The MHRA had a chairman who was previously employed by GlaxoSmithKline for many years. Is the Minister happy that this measure is not an extension of that body policing itself and having an interest that is predominantly private and commercial, rather than that of the general public?
George Freeman
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the Opposition for their support for the measure, which I expected but which is none the less welcome. It is a sensible piece of legislation, and I am grateful for their support. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s three questions, as well as those of the hon. Member for Newport West.
On terminology, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston makes an important point. I am conscious of the need to keep well aligned the devolved Assemblies’ different work in this space. As the UK Minister for Life Sciences, I am conscious that the devolved Governments have their own responsibilities, and I have initiated an annual meeting with Ministers from the devolved Administrations to consider the sector. I will table the measure there and raise the point that he has made. I am not aware that it is a problem at the moment, but I think that his point was more about ensuring that it does not become one.
The hon. Gentleman asked about effectiveness. We intend, as part of our more general work on monitoring the effectiveness of the various campaigns against smoking, to ensure that the measure does not have any counter-effect. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has responsibility for public health, will lead on that, alongside her work on smoking more generally.
On the hon. Gentleman’s third question, I do not fear that the measure might normalise smoking. The evidence that we have received is that it should not, and there is no reason to expect that it will. I agree that we want to ensure that that does not happen.
The charges are not enormous, and they are perfectly in accord with charges across the rest of the medical device sector. For those who wonder what the statutory instrument is all about, it is about ensuring that vaping devices, which contain chemicals and a filament that vaporises liquid to create an inhalant, are properly regulated and monitored, and that the chemical inside is correct.
The hon. Member for Newport West asked whether I am concerned about the danger of the MHRA being distorted by commercial interests. I am not. I am not complacent about it, but wherever I go—in this country, in Europe or around the world—the MHRA is held up as an example of Britain at its absolute best. It is rigorous, it is science and evidence-based, and it is leading the debate on the regulation of 21st-century devices, drugs and diagnostics. In doing that, it is important that it is able to draw on the industry and best practice within it, but, as the Minister with responsibility for the MHRA, I assure Members that in its annual reviews, in my visits and in all my work with it, I see no evidence of undue leniency—if that is the word—with the industry. What I see is an organisation that is committed to regulating in a way that not only ensures that patient safety is paramount, but that helps the industry, on which we all rely for these drugs, devices and diagnostics, to bring them to market. I hope that it is not hostile to industry, but that it is, first and foremost—as, indeed, it is—completely committed to the rigorous implementation of the highest standards of patient safety.
I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Ruth Evans to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of 5 years with effect from 1 June 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. The appointment has arisen due to the term of the current chair, Sir Ian Kennedy, coming to an end and I wish to thank Sir Ian, who has chaired the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority since its creation in 2009. The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report—its first of 2016—in relation to this motion. The report was circulated to members of this Committee last week. The chair of IPSA is appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Under that Act, the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment to the board of IPSA, and any such nominated candidate must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee, known as SCIPSA.
Although this is not a ministerial appointment, the Speaker has had regard to the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. He appointed a panel to conduct the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates, which was chaired by Dame Denise Platt, a former member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The other members of the panel were Ken Batty and Professor Chatterji, lay members of SCIPSA; Enid Rowlands, chair of the Solicitors Regulation Authority; and Laura Sandys, former Member for South Thanet.
The panel’s role was to identify which candidates met the requirements for the role and were therefore appointable to the position of chair of IPSA. Mr Speaker would then meet all appointable candidates and put forward one candidate to SCIPSA for approval. On this occasion, the Committee identified only one appointable candidate —Ruth Evans. Mr Speaker met Ms Evans on 10 March and decided to recommend her appointment to SCIPSA. The Committee met Ms Evans on 15 March and gave its approval to her nomination, as required by the 2009 Act.
Ruth Evans has held a number of senior non-executive positions in both the public and private sectors. She was the first chair of the Bar Standards Board. She has also been chair of the Authority for Television on Demand, non-executive director of the National Audit Office and a senior non-executive director at CPP Group plc. Currently, she is a non-executive director at the Serious Fraud Office, chair of the Payments Strategy Forum and a non-executive commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
If the appointment is made, Ruth Evans will serve as chair of IPSA for five years until 31 May 2021. I hope that this Committee, and ultimately the House, will support her appointment. I wish Ms Evans well, in the expectation that she takes up her new post.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Sir Ian Kennedy, who has been chair of IPSA since its creation in 2009, following the public outcry about the misuse of MPs’ expenses. He took on that role knowing that there would be intense public scrutiny of the decisions he made and—remarkably, I think—stayed in the post for seven years. He has played a key role in beginning to re-establish the public’s trust in the standards and protocols of this place, as well as in Members of Parliament themselves.
I congratulate Ruth Evans on her appointment as the new chair of IPSA and on her great many talents and abilities, which have been shared with this Committee. At the risk of repeating the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the House, I note that among many other achievements, Ms Evans was the first chair of the Bar Standards Board, has been a non-executive director of the National Audit Office and was deputy chair of the Ofcom Consumer Panel. She is currently a non-executive director at the Serious Fraud Office, chair of the Payments Strategy Forum and a non-executive commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission. She is clearly a highly capable and impressive appointee.
The post has been advertised widely through national newspapers, online outlets and the use of professional consultants. However, given the low regard in which MPs collectively are held, the Government will no doubt have considered potential concerns that the post, which seeks to regulate MPs’ use of public funds, is ultimately appointed through parliamentary systems.
The Deputy Leader of the House might be able to advise me on the process, but it seems that the Speaker appoints an independent panel to oversee the advertising, the search and the shortlisting of candidates and that the panel then refers the shortlisted candidates back to the Speaker, although in practice the current Speaker opts to collaborate closely with the Speaker’s Committee prior to the appointment. On this occasion, the Committee also chose to meet directly with the successfully appointed candidate before making its recommendation to the House. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm whether she believes the current process is sufficiently robust and that it will continue to be perceived as independent, so as to stand up to future scrutiny of IPSA, the new Chair and the procedures of this place?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who served on the Speaker’s Committee, has assured me that Ms Evans is a well-qualified candidate; we are very happy to add our support. It is important that such appointments are made in a fair and transparent manner and are open to scrutiny, and today’s Committee sitting is an important part of that process. It is important, too, that the members and chairs of such public boards are refreshed on a regular basis so that fresh perspectives can be brought to their operations. That is particularly important as IPSA continues to review its own procedures while carrying out its important task of restoring confidence in Parliament. We are happy to support the appointment today.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked whether I felt the process was sufficiently robust. I think there are sufficient safeguards, because the initial interview is conducted by a panel of people who are not Members of Parliament. I understand that 20 to 25 people applied, four people were interviewed and then the panel put forward a recommendation. SCIPSA also has lay members, so the appointment is not simply rubber-stamped by MPs; there is still a further challenge. Consequently, it matters that people have confidence in the process, and I think that has been well established.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Strategy in Afghanistan
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, I will briefly outline the procedure. A member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about that Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate—I believe that that will be Kelly Tolhurst. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, and questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for that statement and the subsequent questions and answers is up to one hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the Order Paper and debate takes place upon that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.
I call Kelly Tolhurst to make a statement on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It might help the Committee if I explain a little of the background and why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended this joint communication and the subsequent Council decisions for debate.
The 2014 joint communication outlines the key elements of a future EU strategy, covering the political context as well as the key objectives and initiatives on which the EU will focus in support of the Government of Afghanistan. The communication focuses on four key areas: promoting peace and security, reinforcing democracy, encouraging economic and human development, and fostering the rule of law and respect for human rights. Although there was nothing controversial about the proposals in the joint communication, the previous European Scrutiny Committee, before the 2015 Dissolution, recommended it for debate because of the role that the EU would be undertaking, one way or another using EU taxpayer money, in post-2014 Afghanistan, and because of the host of uncertainties about issues essential to the strategy’s successful implementation. That Committee’s view was that the new Parliament would value the opportunity to debate the subject and that would give the new Government an opportunity to report on and discuss what had happened in the interim. The new European Scrutiny Committee endorsed that recommendation.
Earlier this year, in line with the strategy, the EU and Afghanistan finalised a co-operation agreement on partnership and development, which is the first contractual relationship between the EU and Afghanistan. It underpins the EU’s commitment to supporting Afghanistan’s development during its decade of transformation, as agreed at the 2011 Bonn conference. By strengthening political dialogue and improving co-operation in a broad range of areas, the CAPD constitutes, to quote the Minister for Europe,
“a framework for further engagement and cooperation between the EU and Afghanistan across a number of areas including political cooperation, human rights, gender equality, civil rights, peace building, counter-terrorism, development, trade, rule of law, policing, migration, education, energy and the environment.”
Nearly a year after the previous European Scrutiny Committee recommended the joint communication for debate by the European Committee, uncertainties remained about the strategy’s successful implementation, particularly in relation to the security situation. In February this year, the European Scrutiny Committee further recommended that the Council’s decision containing the consequential CAPD, together with the EU strategy document, should be debated as soon as possible. In so doing, the Committee’s aim was to facilitate a wide-ranging debate that enables the Government to clarify and discuss how and the context in which that agreement will operate, and interested Members to explore all the implications, including for the UK’s own commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to debate this important matter, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood for her statement.
It is important first to step back and recognise Britain’s long interest in and history with the country of Afghanistan. Afghanistan gained its independence from us in 1919. As my hon. Friend said, it has endured decades of instability, and the absence of strong government led to al-Qaeda and the Taliban being able to take hold, culminating in the attacks on 9/11. Despite international efforts to assist Afghanistan, the tragic attacks earlier this month in which 64 people were killed show that there is still much work to be done. Security concerns certainly dominate, but as my hon. Friend said, the country faces other challenges, too. The World Health Organisation recently confirmed that the health status of Afghanistan is one of the worst in the world, and there are other areas of concern, from academia to economic governance and regional stability. Let us not forget that the majority of the world’s heroin supply comes from opium grown in that neck of the woods. Farmers are discouraged from growing legal crops because criminal gangs and extremists are encouraging them to benefit from and participate in opium cultivation.
It is important that the international community, including the European Union, stays the course. Afghanistan will be a key focus of the NATO summit in Warsaw later this year and of the Brussels development summit in October. The combined commitment of €200 million for the next four years is the European Union’s largest single bilateral commitment, which underlines the importance of that difficult part of the world. As my hon. Friend said, key areas of focus will be agriculture, health, the rule of law and, indeed, democracy.
The draft Council decisions on the signature and conclusion of the comprehensive agreement on partnership and development were submitted for scrutiny in January 2016, and the European Scrutiny Committee issued its report later that month. The Committee decided not to clear the draft Council decisions from scrutiny and requested the debate that brings us here today. During negotiations the Government robustly defended our long-held position on agreements that cover matters of national competence, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee on the matter on 10 February. I fully expect the revised Council decisions on the signature and conclusion of the agreement to list member states as parties to the agreement, reflecting that it is a mixed agreement.
As members of the Committee may know, the comprehensive agreement on partnership and development is intended to be a 10-year agreement providing a legal framework for EU relations with Afghanistan. The agreement has been under negotiation since 2011 and is now close to being finalised. The agreement will provide an overall structure for co-operation between the EU and Afghanistan and it will outline how we take forward political dialogue, development co-operation, trade and judicial co-operation. The agreement will act as a framework through which to identify priorities, to agree broad principles and objectives and to establish means of co-operation and progress. As is evident from the time it has taken to complete the negotiations, the agreement does not duck the difficult issues. It addresses our areas of concern: for example, it will commit parties to working together on human rights promotion and education and to strengthening Afghanistan’s institutions.
EU negotiators are guided by a mandate agreed by all member states. Negotiators regularly report back to and take instructions from the UK and other EU member states. In that way we have ensured that many of our aims and objectives in the agreement mirror those of our bilateral relationship with Afghanistan. The Government welcome the comprehensive agreement on partnership and development as a signal of the European Union’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. We will continue to guide negotiations on the agreement to a successful conclusion that meets our objectives, but we will also shape negotiations on future EU positions, strategies and programmes that will put the agreement into effect—something that we can only do as a full and active member of the European Union.
As for the other document under discussion today, I believe it has been submitted for scrutiny, corrections have now been made and we are now in a better place to make judgments and to make the alterations that will satisfy the Committee.
The Chair
We now have until 5.34 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members to make the questions brief; you will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate that follows, so please confine yourselves to questions for now. I will allow Members to ask supplementary questions if they so wish.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of the EU strategy on Afghanistan, whether or not this country wants to leave the European Union? Will he say a little more about strategies for employment to prevent unemployment, alienation and possible insurgency recruitment among the 400,000 young Afghans who enter the workforce each year—particularly if the economy shrinks as the international presence and the assistance contracts reduce? Will this plan support not just Afghanistan but the neighbouring countries that host the 600,000 displaced Afghans, who live mainly in Iran and Pakistan? What arrangements are in place to monitor the outcomes of the strategy and to audit EU aid, given that corruption is a major challenge in Afghanistan?
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased by the hon. Lady’s tone in raising those questions. It is important that we recognise the commitment and ability of Britain to influence what the EU is doing. We must recognise that NATO and other forward-leaning organisations are able to deal with adversaries or enemies; it is in peacekeeping, rebuilding and stabilisation that the EU comes to the fore. We have expertise in this area. Our commitment not just to the NATO 2% but to the official development assistance spend of 0.7% means that we are in a very experienced place to lead in the EU, to make sure that the EU’s focus is aligned with ours. We are pleased that that is also the case in regard to Afghanistan.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the challenge of employment in Afghanistan, not least because if people do not find employment, many of them can drift into extremism because they do not feel able to change their station in life. It is important that the security umbrella can continue in effect. That is a challenge, no doubt, but we are certainly seeing the ability of non-governmental organisations to operate right across Afghanistan, from Herat all the way to Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul itself, to provide education programmes that give people opportunities in life that they have not had before. GDP has increased tenfold since 2001 and the number of children in schools has increased by up to 6 million, with girls in particular going to school as well. Those are positive indications that we are able incrementally to help the country.
There are also regional opportunities for Afghanistan to participate in, such as the “One Belt, One Road” project led by China. There are huge opportunities for the region as a whole, but we must make sure that the challenges of extremism, terrorism and the Taliban are not able to knock them off course, particularly after the very difficult decade we had under the previous Government.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister expand on the strategy for improving the lot of women in democracy and society in general? How can we ensure that the human rights promotion and education that the Government of Afghanistan are committed to pursuing actually work? Does the Minister have a view on how the EU can best ensure that we make a real and positive contribution to security and to sustainable and stable frameworks for law and order?
Mr Ellwood
Again, those are very pertinent questions. On the security front, we are working with our international allies. We face huge challenges and it has been very demoralising to see the difficulties in Helmand province, which this country got to know well because we focused on it. There is the challenge of the Taliban, and often rival warlords or tribes disagree about how their country or area should advance. We remain committed to having 450 troops in Kabul, along with American units. Indeed, the international community has more than 9,000 troops assisting the Afghan security forces so they have the indigenous capability to tackle extremism.
On governance, it is absolutely important to recognise the role that women should play. I stand to be corrected, but the last time that I looked at the numbers there were more women in the Afghan Parliament than in the British Parliament. That indicates the role that women can play, but aspects of Afghan society are culturally very conservative. Every effort needs to be made through the work of the EU and our bilateral initiatives to advance change at a pace that is tolerable for that country but recognises the important role that women can play in society.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion. I call the Minister to move the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 9467/14, a Joint Communication: Elements for an EU Strategy in Afghanistan 2014-16, No. 15503/15 and Addendum, a Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing of the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development between the EU and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and No. 15504/15 and Addendum, a Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development between the EU and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; also notes that the strategy was adopted by the Council in June 2014, during a period of considerable uncertainty for Afghanistan; further notes that the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development is intended as a signal of political commitment that indicates areas for future cooperation under the next EU strategy for Afghanistan beyond 2016; welcomes the UK’s success in directing the EU’s strategy in Afghanistan; supports the Government’s view that now is an appropriate point to focus on the EU strategy’s progress and delivery, as well as the EU’s role in Afghanistan beyond 2016; and agrees that the UK is well placed to lead this work.—(Mr Ellwood.)
Pat Glass
I am sure the Minister will understand why the first question I put to him was about the UK’s continued commitment to Afghanistan. I have a very personal reason for that. The first thing that I did as an MP—I mean the very first thing, the day after I was elected in 2010, before I came here and signed in—was to attend the funeral of Daryn Roy, a young man from my constituency who had died in Camp Bastion in April. He was flown back and was buried the day after the election. Daryn’s family was sustained at that time and has been since by his absolute belief that what he and his fellow British soldiers were doing in Afghanistan was really making a difference, particularly for women and children. I think that we all understand why we should want to see the UK at the forefront of this European strategy and why we should be absolutely committed irrespective of what happens in June this year.
It is vital that now the military intervention is over, there is a suitably funded strategy to support Afghanistan. Given our commitment, it is right that Afghanistan is the largest recipient of aid from the EU as a whole. The Minister is quite right to say that this strategy does not duck the issues. I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee, because had the strategy not been submitted for debate, I would probably not have looked at it in any detail. I am pleased that I did. It clearly sets out the political context in Afghanistan and the EU strategy to help that country to become a sustainable state. It is clear that there has been real progress in Afghanistan over the past 10 years—much more so than in the neighbouring states, but the strategy clearly sets out that those gains are “mostly fragile and reversible” and describes as “acute” the challenges facing the country, including
“insurgency, corruption and the criminalisation of the state—in particular from drug money”.
It is right that the strategy focuses on peace, stability and security, on reinforcing democracy, on encouraging economic and human development and on fostering the rule of law and respect for human rights, particularly in relation to women and children. Given the fragility of this state, the challenges facing it and the fact that Afghanistan has one of the youngest populations in the world, it is vital that the EU continues to work with Afghanistan to ensure that the progress that it has made is not reversed.
Mr Ellwood
I was not expecting to respond so soon, but I am delighted to be able to do so and to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North West Durham. She began with a reflection on her constituent Daryn Roy, who gave her a personal reason to speak today; she is to be commended for that. There will be many families who look at the commitment we made to supporting the stabilisation of a very difficult part of the world and ask themselves, “What was it all for?” It is important that we as a nation, but also as part of the European Union, continue to work to support Afghanistan as a country in its infancy, as it develops rule of law, governance and better practice and provides its own stability in a very difficult region.
I do not normally make reference to this, but hon. Members will be aware that I lost my own brother to terrorism: he was killed in the Bali bombing. The people who killed my brother were trained in Afghanistan. That is what took me to visit the country—indeed, I visited Afghanistan more than any other country while my party was in opposition. I am very familiar not only with the challenges there but with the lack of progress. I recall a visit to Camp Bastion, where they had just succeeded in taking a huge turbine up to Kajaki dam to fill in one of the slots there to generate electricity that would have changed Helmand. I was astonished to learn recently that that turbine still lies next to Kajaki dam, on the side, in its bubble wrap. That is the sort of thing we need to make sure is completed. I have said it already, but I want to make it very clear that that task, along with many other initiatives such as improvements to the Salang tunnel, needs to be moved forward. We cannot simply let go because it is not in the headlines any more; the troops are as active as they were before.
The hon. Lady is also right to recognise the scale of the youth population in Afghanistan. Many of them are looking on the internet, seeing a wider life of opportunities further afield and saying “I want some of that in Afghanistan as well.” They are the future; they are the ones we need to ensure that the country can advance. They need jobs if we are to ensure that Afghanistan becomes more stable. Economic weakness leads to insecurity and insecurity leads to economic weakness; it is important that we break that vicious cycle.
I conclude by thanking hon. Members and the Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to discuss these important matters and Britain’s—as well as the European Union’s—position on and commitment to Afghanistan. We are entering a different era from the one we saw under President Karzai: the co-operation we are seeing with Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah is far better than it was in the past. The relationship with Pakistan, which was always a huge concern, is also much improved, with border security much better. Our own experience and leadership play a vital role as the European Union participates in stabilisation and reconstruction. We lead by example: we can influence the use of resources and make sure that what the European Union does ties in to Britain’s national and international interests. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to debate these important matters.
Question put and agreed to.