House of Commons

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 February 2022

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

1. What discussions she has had with representatives of the racing industry on (a) developing a single customer view and (b) the forthcoming gambling White Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

I have had extensive conversations with the horse-racing industry and with hon. Members who represent constituencies with racing interests on the Gambling Act 2005 review in general and on the plans that the industry are voluntarily developing to share information on customers who are at severe risk of addictive gambling disorders.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Can the Minister confirm that when the draft proposals of the review are announced, there will be an impact assessment on the horse-racing industry? Will he meet me to discuss my alternative to the proposed single customer view, the single customer wallet, which would not only be cheaper and more efficient for the industry to bring in, but offer consumers better protections?

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the register. I caution the Minister that the civil service always underestimates the extent of potential for fraud and the black market. Whether with tobacco smuggling, excise fraud, VAT fraud, self-employment scams or covid scams, it is continually surprised by what happens. Before he brings out the gambling White Paper, will he talk to the racing and gaming industry to ensure that his proposals do not fuel the black market and organised crime?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for attending the recent meeting that we had on the topic. We are, of course, concerned about the possibility of black market gambling. I hope there will be proposals in our review to give the Gambling Commission additional powers to tackle and combat black market betting. We will be mindful of the risks that he has highlighted; I have discussed them already with the Betting and Gaming Council and the industry. We need to balance protecting people who are at severe risk of gambling addiction and serious harm—some people even commit suicide—with ensuring that there is not a flourishing black market, which I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to prevent.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I welcome the fact that the Minister will carry out an impact assessment on the possible effect on horse-racing of any changes that he proposes. He will be aware that racing depends heavily on bookmakers for about 45% of its income. I congratulate him on that policy and thank him for the way in which he is carrying out the review.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting that we recently attended. As I said, we will consider the impact of the whole set of proposals covered in the gambling White Paper, which will obviously have a number of effects on different bits of the economy. As I said at the meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming a few days ago, we want to ensure that nothing in the review undermines the status of horse-racing.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Delays to gambling reform cost about £647 million each year and the Government have failed to act. It is not good enough. Up to 1.4 million people are considered to be problem gamblers, so I am struggling to see why the Government continue to drag their feet when the need for reform is crystal clear. What is the Minister doing in advance of the long-awaited White Paper, because we need to address the issue now?

[Chris Philp]

All kinds of measures have been taken to address some of those very serious problems, which I completely recognise and accept. For example, a year or two ago, the use of credit cards to gamble online was banned. As we speak, the industry is in the process of developing a voluntary single customer view. A number of things have been done.

We are working, and have been working, on the Gambling Act review at pace and it will be published in the very near future. It is important to get it right, however, which is why we have taken the time to consult extensively and listen to stakeholders. I have met many hon. Members on both sides of the House to listen to their views too. It is very imminent because, as the hon. Lady says, large numbers of people are suffering serious harm, up to and including committing suicide. That is why it is important for the House to act on, I hope, a cross-party basis, broadly speaking, to sort it out.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to support the UK tourism industry as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

The tourism industry has been severely affected by covid-19, which is why we have provided more than £37 billion in financial support to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors over the pandemic. The Government’s tourism recovery plan sets out our ambition to get visitor numbers back to pre-pandemic levels a year faster than independent forecasts predict. To help us to achieve that ambition, VisitBritain’s international marketing campaign launches this month to target pent-up demand in key markets.

[Huw Merriman]

Last weekend I visited the beautiful Rathfinny vineyard, and last summer I met the Minister in the De La Warr pavilion. These two gems are part of the Sussex Modern trail, which links our vineyards with our cultural and artistic icons. Would the Minister meet me to discuss why Southern rail is not promoting tourism offers such as those, which would not only provide a great boost to its own passenger numbers—needed after covid-19—but boost tourism in Sussex and elsewhere in the country?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Indeed, I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency last year. He has many gems—cultural, historic, heritage—as well as tourist attractions, so I can see why so many people would want to visit his part of the world. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his proposals, some of which would involve engagement across Departments, and I would be happy to facilitate those conversations as well.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

14. One of the biggest drivers of tourism in my area is the city walls—the only complete set of city walls in the UK—but the local authority has to spend money from the highways budget on their upkeep. Does the Minister agree with me that such major heritage and tourism assets should be funded centrally, because they are national and, indeed, international treasures?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do invest quite heavily in heritage, particularly with the culture recovery programme, and of course there is ongoing investment in heritage through the national lottery heritage schemes and others. Again, this is an area that sometimes involves cross-Government work, so I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his ideas and proposals.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to ensure reliable phone signal in (a) North Norfolk and (b) other rural areas.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

We very much understand the frustration of poor mobile coverage in rural areas. That is why we agreed a deal with the operators to deliver the shared rural network, which tackles notspots and reduces the divide in connectivity between urban and rural areas. Norfolk will see coverage uplifts by the industry element of that programme, which is due to complete in June 2024.

[Duncan Baker]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, my constituency has many areas of outstanding natural beauty. They include Salthouse, Overstrand and Kelling, and I am sure she may want to spend her holidays there this summer. However, places such as those also have incredibly bad mobile phone reception, and residents are caught between better reception and blighting the area with mobile telecoms infrastructure. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we can bring a better mobile signal to those areas without decreasing their natural beauty?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I can assure him that I know how beautiful North Norfolk is. I spent some time there last summer, and it is an incredibly picturesque part of the country. We want to maintain that, and that is why the shared rural network aims to transform mobile coverage without duplicating infrastructure, therefore minimising the visual impact. My officials have spoken to the shared rural network, and they will be getting in touch with his team. I would be happy to meet him after that to see how we can do more in this area.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to support film and TV production in the UK.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

This Government’s actions have helped the film and TV industry bounce back from the pandemic. Our production achieved record success last year, and my right hon. Friend may have seen the vote of confidence given by the new Amazon Prime deal with Shepperton studios this week. Our covid-related support includes the £500 million production restart scheme and the culture recovery fund, which my right hon. Friend will know has awarded £117,000 to Maldon’s Rio cinema. We want to make sure not just that films are made here, but that they are seen on the big screen in cinemas across our towns.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the excellent news from Amazon Prime. Can she confirm that the film and TV production restart scheme, which was possible only as a result of Brexit, has so far supported production worth nearly £2.5 billion and supported 80,000 jobs? Given this success, will she consider extending the scheme beyond its end in April, and if that is not possible, will she try to obtain equivalent cover from commercial insurers at that time?

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how successful the scheme has been. It has supported £2.8 billion of production spend and over 92,000 jobs, which means we have kept production going and had a fantastic year. As he knows, the scheme was established as a time-limited and short-term intervention in response to a market failure because of the pandemic. It will continue until 30 June, but in the meantime we are working very closely with industry stakeholders and insurers to make sure that there is an effective transition to market cover when that scheme closes to new applicants in April.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of her absence today. I am not sure whether her own side would see that as a blessing or a curse, given that some of her recent performances have had—how shall we describe them—mixed reviews. Our public service broadcasters are responsible for two thirds of commissions outside London, and provide a pipeline of skilled and talented workers across our regions and nations. With programming that is sold around the world, they underpin our incredibly successful creative ecosystem. The levelling-up White Paper will soon impose a statutory requirement on the Government that their own policies will meet their new levelling-up missions. How will the Secretary of State square that with her plan to sell off Channel 4 and end the BBC as we know it? Will her plans to do so be evaluated against her Government’s new legal requirements for levelling up?

[Julia Lopez]

I confirm that we miss the Secretary of State very much. She is flying the flag for the UK in the global Expo today, and we are all proud of the work she is doing there.

I assure the hon. Lady that we very much support our public service broadcasting sector, and it has a huge role to play in levelling up the regions. We want to support that role going forward, and we have absolutely no intention to end the BBC. A decision has not yet been made about the sale of Channel 4, but if we looked at such a sale, we would very much look at commitments to the regions. We also do fantastic stuff on PSBs with apprenticeships, and those PSBs are creating jobs across the UK, which we very much want to keep going.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

5. What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

15. What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Gigabit broadband coverage has rocketed from 6% to 65% in the past three years. More than 80 different companies are now rolling out gigabit broadband, investing more than £30 billion between them. In hard-to-reach areas, we have already upgraded 600,000 premises, with a further 2.5 million premises in our procurement pipeline, as set out this week in our most recent winter update to Project Gigabit.

[Peter Aldous]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. I recognise the challenges of achieving nationwide gigabit broadband coverage, but it is essential if the levelling-up agenda is to be properly delivered. At present, the gaps in coverage in Suffolk extend to approximately 25% of premises predominantly in rural areas. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide that gigabit-capable broadband in such rural areas will keep pace with the wider drive towards nationwide coverage?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of good digital connectivity, and we want to ensure that there is no divide between urban and rural areas. There is already 97% superfast coverage in Suffolk, but we want to futureproof connectivity to take on board all the technologies that will be coming down the line. We are creating a competition friendly environment to encourage commercial roll-out in most areas, and we are then prioritising public money in areas where the commercial roll-out will not reach. Our regional supply of procurements is up and running, and I am pleased that Suffolk is in phase 1 of that programme. We are aiming to launch the procurement process by April.

[Selaine Saxby]

With the Government’s levelling-up announcement confirming plans for the UK to have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2030, it is important that consumers in rural constituencies such as mine have access to every fibre internet service provider on the market, ideally via a wholesaler. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to help ensure that residents in North Devon and the wider south-west have, as consumers, fair and reasonable choices?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is rightly back in her place and is holding my feet to the flames on these issues. Thanks in part to our gigabit strategy, there is a thriving market rolling out gigabit-capable broadband all across the country, but we cannot force providers to offer their services in specific locations. Where deployment is supported directly by publicly funded contracts, those contracts include requirements for wholesale access. For Project Gigabit, the procurement processes differentiate suppliers on the choice of retail offerings that they are able to bring. We are also supporting various industry initiatives to develop the wholesale market for smaller alt-nets.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

In 2016, The Lee Parish Council in my constituency received an assurance about broadband provision from HS2 Ltd, that it would keep it

“updated on the outcome of discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Broadband UK in relation to support for broadband provision for communities along the Phase One route.”

Apart from a few holding letters, The Lee Parish Council has not heard anything for three years. Will the Minister provide details about those discussions to reassure my constituents that they are indeed taking place?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for raising that. I am keen that any hon. Member should feel that they can write to me about issues in their area. We are trying to get a much better system up and running so that we can get such cases answered. I encourage her to write to me as I am very happy to look into her concerns.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I take this opportunity to send our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for a speedy recovery from covid?

We have had a dizzying number of broadband targets, each weaker than the last. Which is the Government’s current target—is it nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2025 as they previously said, 85% coverage by 2025 as their national infrastructure strategy says, or the latest one of nationwide coverage by 2030? How confident is the Minister about meeting any of those targets given that the digital divide is growing, not narrowing, and she has no detailed plan for reaching communities that are not commercially viable?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for probing me on these matters and send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). The target is 85%-plus by 2025, and we expect to have all our procurements under contract by the end of this Parliament. We are confident about meeting those targets which, given the increasing importance of digital connectivity to our prosperity, are vital to ensuring that we do not see digital divides emerge.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

The Scottish Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in accelerating the roll-out of superfast broadband in Scotland, even though broadband is reserved. Will the Minister insist to Cabinet colleagues that levelling up plans must include finally delivering the funding necessary to roll out superfast broadband, as that is the United Kingdom Government’s responsibility?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the important connectivity needs of Scotland. This is a Union issue and the Government are keen to help. I recently had a productive meeting with Kate Forbes—incidentally, I congratulate her on her pregnancy—who is an excellent Minister. Ensuring connectivity across the Union is very much part of our levelling up plans, and I am happy to continue working with the Scottish Parliament on such issues.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

The Government’s focus on gigabit roll-out is absolutely right and I am grateful that Buckinghamshire is included in the current public review of gigabit broadband infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that there is a plan to tackle the problem in villages such as Mentmore in my constituency, where fibre has been installed but 20 commercially unviable houses have been left out, leaving those people and homes behind? How can we narrow that gap and ensure that once fibre goes into a village, it really reaches everyone?

[Julia Lopez]

This is a common challenge across the country. We are trying to focus public resource on premises that are not being connected by the commercial roll-out and ensuring that we share data with commercial providers so that we know which premises we need to cover in our contracts. I am happy to look into my hon. Friend’s area to ensure that we do that.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to strengthen and promote public service broadcasting.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Our public service broadcasting system is a critical part of our media landscape. We are committed to making sure that it continues to thrive in the face of a rapidly changing broadcast sector. That is why we are undertaking a strategic review looking at making sure that the PSB system delivers for audiences and supports the success of our incredible creative sector. We will set out the conclusions of that review in due course.

[Jamie Stone]

I want to put on the record my thanks for a useful meeting with the Minister this week about social tariffs for mobile devices. Channel 4 is close to my heart, as it is to those of many hon. Members. Will she assure me that any future owner of Channel 4 will be as committed to using small, local producers and providers as Channel 4 is at present? Have the Government carried out a risk assessment on what privatising Channel 4 might mean for small, local, important British producers?

[Julia Lopez]

It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member this week to discuss the important issue of social tariffs as well as Union connectivity, which I know he feels passionately about. Channel 4 is valued by all of us. There is a debate to be had, however, about the best ownership structure for it. The Government believe that one of the strengths that any future buyer might see in Channel 4 is its links with independent producers—small independent producers in particular—and, were we to decide to sell it, we would very much want to see that protected.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

An important part of public broadcasting is radio. Last October, the Government’s review into digital, audio and radio found that the Hope valley in my constituency has very poor DAB—digital audio broadcasting—service. What are the Government doing to improve digital radio access for rural communities such as the Hope valley?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the needs of the Hope valley, which he is right to do. We have conducted a review of this area, and we have been working with commercial radio and the BBC on this issue for a number of years. We do not expect them to be doing a great deal of extra work on DAB roll-out, but I am happy to continue looking into the matter and to consider the issues he highlights in his own patch.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to ensure diverse representation in (a) women’s and (b) men’s national cricket teams to help tackle racism in that sport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

We must ensure that cricket, and indeed all sports, are accessible to people from all backgrounds. National team selection is not something the Government have control over—that is for governing bodies to decide—but I am sure we can all agree that the primary basis should be talent. We need that diverse pool of talent. I have had positive conversations with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the county clubs on ensuring that talent pathways are fully open to the diverse range of people who play the game at grassroots level.

[Kim Johnson]

The Minister makes some interesting points, but does he agree that actions speak louder than words? The game has been described as institutionally racist. Can a review of dressing room culture, being undertaken by Clare Connor, fix the deeply entrenched under-representation of black women cricketers when Ebony Rainford-Brent, the first black member of the women’s cricket team, said she had never been made to feel different until she entered the cricket world?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with the hon. Lady on those concerns. There is a lot more to do in cricket and across sport as a whole. I have met the county chairmen and Lord Patel, as well as having dialogue with the ECB. I believe progress is being made, but I agree completely with her: I want to see actions, not just words.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet that Lord Patel, Yorkshire’s new chair, has been forced to publicly call out a group of individuals for seeking to delay and derail vital reforms of the club in order to combat the scourge of racism? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to support Lord Patel in his fight, the ECB should state that international cricket can return to Headingley but on the strict proviso that members back Lord Patel’s reforms, we see a dilution of the power of the Graves Trust, and that they ignore the siren calls of those who wish to retain the shameful status quo?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his and the Committee’s work in this area. The decision to bring internationals back to Yorkshire is for the ECB and I have to respect that, but I have met Lord Patel, even just yesterday, and personally I am somewhat comforted and assured about the progress being made in Yorkshire. Indeed, I have seen good progress being made in cricket overall, but I want to see a lot more. I reiterate that the decision is for the ECB, but I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to close the digital divide between people (a) with and (b) without access to the internet.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Access to the internet is increasingly important to people’s life chances. Today, over 65% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks, but we have ambitions to do much more, precisely because we want to ensure that a more profound digital divide does not emerge. The Government are encouraging broadband providers to roll out low-cost broadband social tariffs for low-income households, so that the internet is more affordable. We are highlighting those services via work coaches at jobcentres. We are also looking to boost digital skills. Adults can undertake specified digital qualifications up to level 1 free of charge.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

The Local Government Association has warned that digital exclusion is more likely to impact those on low incomes, the over-65s and people with a disability. At the start of the pandemic, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 had home internet access. Meanwhile, my city is significantly below the UK average for gigabit broadband availability. With vulnerable people in Portsmouth increasingly being left behind by the Government, what specifically is the Minister doing to address affordability and bridge the digital divide?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I cannot disagree with some of the LGA’s analysis. I am happy to look into his city in particular, but this is an issue I discussed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) just this week. Providers are offering social tariffs but we do not think uptake is strong enough. We all have a responsibility in this House to promote social tariffs, so that those who need to get on to the net can. We are looking at various initiatives to make sure people can get online, because it is so important for people’s life chances.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

9. What progress her Department has made on implementing its plans to refurbish local tennis courts, announced on 2 October 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

We are fortunate in this country to have some of the world’s top tennis talent, including Emma Raducanu, Alfie Hewett and Gordon Reid, and I should take this opportunity to wish our athletes in Beijing the very best of luck—we have talent across so many sports. At the spending review, the Government announced £30.1 million to renovate park tennis courts in the UK, in partnership with the Lawn Tennis Association. Plans involved reviving over 4,500 courts, including those in poor or unplayable condition at more than 1,500 venues.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the Minister. That superb mapping exercise across the country by the LTA to benefit, as he said, over 4,500 public courts could be of huge benefit to families, sport, health, local pride and community improvements. My question is a nice and simple one: when will the application forms be ready? Will my hon. Friend share with us some good news?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excitement about our work on tennis courts. He never misses an opportunity to ask that question—I cannot venture into the Tea Room without him doing so—but I appreciate his persistence. Delivery will commence in the next financial year, from April 2022, because I am aware, as he is, that this will make a really big difference to tennis in this country.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I ask the Minister to take this even more seriously? I know that the English team has not being doing well in some sports, but can we look seriously at the opportunities to get a much broader range of young people coming in to play tennis and, in particular, cricket? There seems to be a real difficulty for children in many schools to pursue cricket and tennis, and it seems that most of the people who end up rising to the top come from very privileged backgrounds.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member raises some important points. We do punch above our weight in global sport and that is partly due to the success and investment from Sport England and, indeed, UK Sport. We will be refreshing the school sport and activity action plan and working closely with the Department for Education, focusing very much on engaging young children in a whole variety of sports, for the reasons that he expressed.

[Mr Speaker]

Such as rugby league.

Topical Questions

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

I am standing in for the Culture Secretary, who is today promoting the UK’s national day at the Dubai Expo and welcoming the Queen’s baton ahead of the Commonwealth games. Our Department is at the heart of the levelling-up agenda, through fantastic digital connectivity for all and initiatives such as the new national youth guarantee to enrich the lives of young people in every corner of our country.

We continue to make brilliant progress on our plans for a blockbuster 2022, during which we will honour Her Majesty the Queen, who this week marked 70 years of steadfast service to our country. Two nights ago, we celebrated the best of our world-class music industry at the BRITs. To echo the comments from the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the ministerial team would like to wish the very best of luck to Team GB, who are flying the flag for the entire country at the Beijing winter Olympics.

[Ruth Jones]

Musicians in Newport West and across the UK have been campaigning alongside leaders in the Musicians’ Union, such as Councillor Sarah Williams, for a touring visa that will allow them to showcase British musical prowess. When will the Minister wake up and fight for the musicians’ passport that people so desperately want and need?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of touring. I have been doing a lot of work with officials and other Departments to ease some of the challenges that people have had since we left the EU, and I will continue to work on this issue.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

T5. Broadcast news has a long-standing duty of balance, which moderates public debate, tests opposing views and helps forge consensus across our country, but today’s digital world means that more and more of us get our news through social media platforms, where individual filter bubbles can feed us more of one side without ever showing an alternative view, driving extremism, radicalisation and division instead. Is it now time to extend that duty of balance to include social media platforms?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

My hon. Friend raises an important question, but we need to distinguish between broadcasters, or indeed newspapers, that are exercising editorial judgment, and social media platforms that are carrying content generated by other users. However, we will introduce shortly—in the coming weeks—an online safety Bill that will impose new duties on social media firms in connection with illegal content, content that is harmful to children and content, including disinformation, that is harmful to adults. I hope that will go a long way towards addressing the points that he rightly raises.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was far too vague. Musicians and orchestras are facing a touring crisis. We need an EU-wide cultural touring agreement that includes allowances for cabotage, carnets and customs rules. That needs to happen now, so what are Ministers doing to sort the problem as a matter of urgency?

[Julia Lopez]

We have been working closely across Government to deal with some of the cabotage issues. The issues around agreements with member states are being addressed on a bilateral basis. We have had great breakthroughs with Spain and are working closely with Greece, but most people can work in those countries for up to 90 days. I am happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman further on the issue.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Swimming is massively important not just for health reasons, but for safety in our island nation. Saltash swimming pool is an excellent facility. What more can the Government do to ensure the long-term future of such facilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, because we spoke about it when I visited her constituency last year. She is right that swimming is a vital life skill, as well as being very good for our physical and mental health. We have provided the sport sector with £1 billion of financial support through the pandemic, and launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund precisely to try to ensure that swimming pools stay open. Further investment through Sport England and other bodies is forthcoming. I would be happy to facilitate further discussions between my hon. Friend and Sport England.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T2. The Minister will remember that the Government were strangely reluctant to implement a ban on the Chinese firm Huawei to prevent it from participating in the United Kingdom’s critical digital infrastructure because of the potential significant security risks. We now discover that the man who has just been appointed director of communications at No. 10 lobbied very hard against that ban. In the light of that information, will the Minister undertake to review the timeline for removing Huawei from our critical infrastructure, to ensure that Britain’s security cannot be compromised by the interests of the Prime Minister’s pals?

[Julia Lopez]

One of my first Acts as a Minister in DCMS was to take through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We take these issues incredibly seriously, and I offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance that we have a whole package of work to ensure that our telecoms networks are secure. Those matters have not been influenced by other issues.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Technology is changing the way in which listeners tune in to their favourite radio stations. Will the Minister set out her plans to secure future access for UK radio stations to smart speakers?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about social media platforms potentially becoming gatekeepers for radio stations. We are looking closely at this issue to ensure that radio stations can have their own data, protect their listenership and so on. I offer him reassurance on that point.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

T3. This Sunday I shall be taking part in a walk with members of The Big Step to highlight the issue of gambling advertising in football. The campaign recognises the harm that gambling does every single day, and the part that football advertising plays in grooming children and normalising gambling among adults. With a gambling Bill seemingly getting further and further away, are there any measures that will be in the final Act that could be implemented now, rather than waiting to dot every i and cross every t? Will the Secretary of State meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm to discuss the matter further?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for the meetings that we have had with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He is right to raise this serious issue, as people are suffering harm from gambling addiction. The review is getting very close now—he will not have to wait much longer—and the issues that he is raising will be squarely addressed. I am happy to meet him and the other members of the APPG at any time; if they just get in touch, we would be happy to organise a meeting.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Good broadband connectivity is vital not only for leisure, but for working from home. But one street in my constituency is a street of two halves—one with 8 megabits per second and the other with 1,000 megabits per second. How can we address these issues? Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we deal with urban notspots?

[Julia Lopez]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. We are trying to target public subsidy at areas that are not being covered, including looking at individual premises. I will look into her particular case.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

T4. Last year it was revealed that across the whole sporting sector, only 7.9% of board members were from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background. That is damning, given the contributions made by black men and women across sport. Representation matters; it brings different experiences and perspectives—and, most importantly, it leads to better decision making. It is Race Equality Week, and the theme this year is “Action, not just words”. Does the Minister agree that the time for action to increase representation at board level across the sporting sector is now? What action will he take to make that happen?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady makes very important points. As we discussed earlier, sport should be for all, on and off the pitch. We need to make sure that there are opportunities right across sport. I believe that progress is being made—diversity and inclusivity are at the top of the agenda for many sportspeople I talk to—but she is right that we need more action, not just warm words.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome greater efforts by the Government to improve internet access, but I met the families federations of the Navy, Army and the RAF, and they are concerned about access to the internet across the military estate. May I invite the Department to do a study on internet access on bases for our armed forces, and to report back to Parliament?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue in the Chamber; it has not been raised with me before. I would be happy to look into improving access to the internet for our military.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions are a major agenda item, and I do not think that we give it long enough. I hope that others will listen to that. So many people could not get their question in; I can only say sorry. I believe that it should be a full hour.

The Attorney General was asked—

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in Yorkshire.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in the west midlands.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate recently published a report on CPS performance in the west midlands, and it is due to report on Yorkshire and Humberside in April. I am pleased to say that, despite the pressures of the pandemic, the report on the west midlands found that commendable improvements had been made, including in seeking orders to protect complainants and witnesses, and in handling third-party disclosure.

[Alexander Stafford]

Youth crime plagues several parts of Rother Valley; there are hotspots around Greenlands Park in North Anston, the market area in Dinnington, and the Queen’s Corner in Maltby. How is the CPS tackling serious youth crime and youth antisocial behaviour in Rother Valley and across the whole of South Yorkshire?

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend is an energetic campaigner and spokesman for those of his constituents who are, sadly, afflicted by crime. The simple answer to his question is: more prosecutors, better training and closer liaison with the police. The CPS has an area youth justice co-ordinator, who is responsible for local training and sharing best practice. Last month, the CPS team in South Yorkshire secured a murder conviction and a life sentence with a 17-year minimum for Kyle Pickles, who was responsible for the tragic murder of 15-year-old Loui Phillips. I hope that Loui’s family can take some solace from the fact that justice was done in that tragic case.

[Jack Brereton]

I thank the Attorney General for her response. I have written to her about the need for the CPS to better understand local circumstances when making decisions. Will she look again at the possibility of co-locating CPS lawyers in local police stations, in order to ensure that they make the best possible decisions, based on local knowledge?

[The Attorney General]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s letter. The point that he raises is critical to the success of the work of the CPS and the police. Closer liaison and better working between police and investigators creates better outcomes for victims and at trial. That is why I am pleased that the west midlands is an Operation Soteria area—that operation is pioneering and institutionalising closer working, by ensuring early investigative advice, improving action plans, and ensuring closer and better scrutiny of the decisions of the police and the CPS. It is a great area where there is some good work.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to help ensure effective prosecution of financial crime.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the (a) Serious Fraud Office and (b) CPS in tackling fraud and economic crime.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

In 2020-21, the CPS prosecuted over 6,500 defendants for fraud, with an 85.6% conviction rate. Meanwhile, in the last five years, the Serious Fraud Office have secured court orders requiring the payment of over £1.3 billion from defendants to the taxpayer. We are determined to build on that to make the United Kingdom a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud.

[Mr Sheerman]

But the truth is that the scandal of the bounce back loans is enormous. We know now that financial crime is being driven by very sophisticated crime syndicates. My constituents want to know when the Government are going to get serious about this. Where is the economic crime Bill? Where is the real focus on trying to get these billions of pounds back? They have been stripped from the Government, under the most incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer I have seen in my 40 years in Parliament.

[The Solicitor General]

To deal with that last point, I find that an extraordinary point to make. It was this Chancellor who ensured in the hon. Member’s constituency that the money was rolled out to save jobs in Huddersfield and we make absolutely no apology for that—millions of pounds to save lives.

Where the hon. Member is right is that fraud shatters lives and destroys trust. We are determined to deal with that. That is why this Government put £400 million in the spending review to support the National Economic Crime Centre and the National Crime Agency to ensure we crack down on fraud. He will see an awful lot more prosecutions, I assure him.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for that response. However, overall, reports of fraud went up by 33% from 2020-21 but the number of police officers dealing with economic crime has increased by just over 6%. What is he doing to ensure the police and the prosecuting authorities are properly resourced to deal with the country’s rising tide of criminal fraud?

[The Solicitor General]

At the 2019 spending review, the CPS received over £80 million. At this spending review, the Government awarded an additional 12% to boost the number of prosecutors and the capability. In addition, as I indicated, £400 million is to be allocated to the NECC and the NCA. That is over and above the funding that has gone into the taxpayer protection taskforce: £100 million and 1,200 staff. This Government are serious about cracking down on economic crime and we are delighted to support those efforts.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Might I say, Mr Speaker, that the Law Officers are entitled to perhaps a good half an hour of the House’s time as well?

The Solicitor General probably has more experience of prosecuting serious fraud hands on than anyone else in this House. From my own experience at the Bar, I know he is right when he says that fraud is not a victimless crime. Does he agree that we need a joined-up approach across Government to tackle this effectively, not just the excellent work that is being done to improve the Crime Prosecution Service’s results, but support from the Home Office to ensure that Action Fraud is not the black hole it is at the moment for many people who lose money in what are termed small-scale, lower-value frauds, but are massively important to them? At the other end of the scale, we need to look at tightening up our laws on corporate criminal responsibility, so we can catch the high-level fraudsters as well. We need approaches on all those fronts.

[The Solicitor General]

As so often, my hon. Friend speaks authoritatively. He is absolutely right that fraud shatters lives and can destroy people’s future in the process. He is right that we need to ensure that the most serious frauds are properly prosecuted—which is why the Serious Fraud Office has received additional funding in the spending review—but also that so-called lower-level crimes are properly resourced. That is why the special crime division of the CPS is doing important work, and why it is increasingly getting the resources it needs to ramp up its capability to take the fight to fraudsters.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is hard to believe, but on 4 February this year Peter Swailes junior was sentenced for a crime that involved financial fraud. A person was kept in his shed for up to 40 years. The CPS managed to get a conviction, but he was not sentenced to any time in prison. I wonder whether the Attorney General would look at the case to see if it was unduly lenient.

[Mr Speaker]

I must admit, I would like an answer but we have to be careful that supplementaries really are linked to the question, which was about financial crime. I think the person mentioned in the hon. Gentleman’s question will have suffered financially as well so I am sure the Minister can answer accordingly.

[The Solicitor General]

We will of course look into that case. Sentencing is a matter for the independent courts, but there is a power to refer cases if they are unduly lenient. I am happy to give that case close attention.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Lord Agnew resigned as a Government Minister because the Treasury

“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should resign for saying that fraud is not a crime people experience in their day-to-day lives, but what about the Law Officers’ culpability? Will the Solicitor General tell us why, according to the latest figures we have obtained from his Department, the Crown Prosecution Service has cut the number of specialist fraud prosecutors by more than a quarter in the past six years, from 224 at the end of 2015 to 167 at the end of 2021?

[The Solicitor General]

I send our best wishes to the shadow Attorney General as she recovers.

The hon. Gentleman is not right in the way he characterises the Government’s approach. He did not mention, as I respectfully suggest he ought to have, the £100 million that was invested in the taxpayer protection taskforce. That is 1,200 staff who have dealt with 13,000 inquiries in respect of fraud and recovered £500 million already and expect to recover significantly more. It is not just about the CPS; what about the National Cyber Security Centre, which took down 73,000 scams last year? I am pleased to note that the CPS has received an additional 12% in funding over the course of this spending review period. It is ramping up its capability and taking the fight to fraudsters.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

The rule of law lies at the heart of the UK constitution and the Law Officers have a particular role in respect of upholding the rule of law. Together with the Solicitor General, I take that responsibility very seriously wherever we are called on to give advice.

[Dan Carden]

On the morning of 8 December, the Attorney General went to Downing Street to advise the Prime Minister after the emergence of the now infamous video of staff in Downing Street joking about parties. That lunch time, the Prime Minister came to this Chamber to say that no parties had taken place in Downing Street and that no covid rules had been broken. Did the Attorney General approve of those comments? If so, was she colluding with the Prime Minister, or did he mislead her?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valiant attempt, but he should be aware of the Law Officers’ convention, which means I am prevented from commenting on the fact or the content of any legal advice provided by Law Officers to members of the Government.

[Dr Huq]

From their early work on Prorogation to the now daily revelations about lockdown-busting parties, this Government have had a fair few brushes with the rule of law. I know the Attorney General cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, but will she tell us whether, when the investigation is concluded and all the 50 email questionnaires come back, anyone found to have breached lockdown regulations, whatever their rank, will face the same consequences as Joe Public did? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), if there have been breaches of the ministerial code, will there be resignations?

[The Attorney General]

The Prime Minister has made his position clear and I am not going to add any more in the light of the live police investigation. The hon. Lady mentioned the rule of law; fundamental to the rule of law is democracy. I am proud to support this Prime Minister, who has honoured democracy by delivering Brexit and is now leading not just the UK but the world in beating covid. Had the Labour party been in charge, it would have cancelled Brexit, not delivered it, and we would have been in more lockdown, not less. On the big calls, Labour gets it wrong.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thanks for that peroration but, to come back to reality, this week the Leader of the Opposition was obstructed while entering this House by disorder on the streets outside following the Prime Minister’s inflammatory remarks at that Dispatch Box. It is the Attorney General’s job to advise Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on acting in accordance with the rule of law, so what advice does she have now to prevent his behaviour from leading to any further breakdown in law and order?

[The Attorney General]

All violence is unacceptable, and I am grateful to those police officers who stepped in to assist the Leader of the Opposition. No one should have to endure that experience. The Prime Minister has spoken on the subject; I am not going to add any more to his comments. What I will say is that on the big calls Labour gets it wrong, and on the things that matter, this Prime Minister and this Government are leading us through covid and international diplomacy against Russian aggression.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Was the Attorney General able to read an interesting article this week by her noble Friend, former Conservative Minister Baroness Altmann, warning of a “slippery slope” towards authoritarian rule and an elected dictatorial elite seeking to override Parliament? Whether it is undermining judicial review, shredding human rights protections, endless ouster clauses, restricted appeal rights or tearing up international treaties, none of it is upholding the rule of law. Is not everything the Attorney General is doing putting the Government above the law?

[The Attorney General]

I strongly refute that suggestion. I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the freedoms and protections that we all enjoy rely fundamentally on the rule of law. I know he understands that: it is an important constitutional principle that demands equality under the law and access to an independent judiciary. The Government are subject to the law. Those are the foundational principles that I adhere to and that I know this Government stick to.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the devolved Administrations on proposed legislation to make it easier to amend or remove retained EU law.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

The Brexit freedoms Bill will once and for all take back control of the UK legal system, ending the special status of retained EU law and making it easier for the democratically elected UK Government to amend or remove it. The devolved Administrations have been kept informed of the progress of the reviews into retained EU law that will inform the Bill. The Government have engaged regularly with the DAs on a wide range of EU exit and EU engagement issues and we look forward to continuing that close working relationship.

[Allan Dorans]

On Friday 28 January, Ministers of the three devolved Administrations were called to a meeting with the Attorney General at very short notice—the very next day, in fact—to discuss the so-called Brexit freedom Bill, which will have significant impact on hundreds of areas controlled by the devolved Governments. The meeting has been described as

“a rushed exercise…with nothing more than a vague verbal briefing”,

with

“no effort by the UK government to properly consult devolved governments on the details of the plans nor seek their views on their impacts on devolved areas of policy and law.”

Will the Attorney General make an unequivocal commitment today that the devolved Administrations will be consulted extensively before any further decisions are taken that would affect their existing policies, and specifically in relation to retained EU law?

[The Attorney General]

Of course there will be continued and meaningful engagement with all the devolved Administrations in this process. It is an important opportunity and an important moment for our whole United Kingdom, and I very much look forward to the input of all the DAs.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with the Serious Fraud Office on the potential level of fraud losses arising from covid-19 related contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care in 2020-21.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

I meet regularly with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss case work and corporate matters. I can confirm that the SFO is indeed investigating a number of suspected fraudulent applications for covid loans, but I can neither confirm nor deny that it is investigating frauds specifically connected to covid-19 contracts awarded by the DHSC.

[Neale Hanvey]

The Good Law Project has now uncovered the existence of an additional 18 VIP lane contracts, bringing the total to 68. Between them, they were awarded a total of £4.9 billion in personal protective equipment contracts. Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, has said that the Department of Health and Social Care was

“open to the risk of fraud.”,

and that he has not received

“adequate assurance that the level of fraud losses are not material.”

What steps does the Attorney General, or the Minister, advise should be taken to uphold the rule of law and assure the House that contracts awarded through the Government’s VIP lane were not fraudulent?

[The Solicitor General]

It is extremely important that we in this House do not inadvertently misrepresent a judgment that has been made in the High Court. In the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Court indicated that the arrangements did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process; that the company’s offers were very likely to have meant it being awarded contracts even without the arrangements; and that there was sufficient financial due diligence in respect of both sets of contracts. Without seeking to go behind the decision of the Court in that case, it is important that it is placed in its proper context. This Government will abide by the rule of law.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office in recovering the proceeds of crime.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

The SFO has had a very positive year in delivering on its commitment to recover the proceeds of crime. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will listen, so far in 2021-22 the SFO has obtained more than £44.5 million in new financial orders from the courts, and at the same time it has successfully recovered more than £45 million by enforcing these and existing orders. Those are the largest recorded sums obtained and recovered in a single year by the SFO.

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his response and hope that there is some hope therein for my constituents who, just two years ago almost to the day, wrote to me about their personal case of how the London Capital & Finance scandal had impacted them. In October of 2021, the only update offered by the SFO was that investigations were ongoing. What assessment can he make of that progress, and what hope can I offer my constituents?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for very properly pressing this case on behalf of her constituents. The SFO continues to investigate the dealings of London Capital & Finance plc and associated companies. The size and complexity of those cases, including the sheer number of victims and witnesses, means that it can take a significant period for a full investigation to be carried out. I meet the SFO director regularly to discuss casework, and I can assure my hon. Friend that driving forward the fastest possible case progression is a priority for me and for the Attorney General. I want to end with this point: over the last five years, thanks to the work of the SFO, a full £1.3 billion has been returned to taxpayers over and above the costs of running the SFO.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of actions that have been taken against the Serious Fraud Office and individuals who work for it by those who seek to hide money—ill-gotten gains—that they wish to launder. It is disturbing that they can take action against individuals who work for agencies that are there to investigate such crimes and criminal behaviour. What action can be taken to protect those individuals from such abusive litigation?

[The Solicitor General]

I am happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman. Where criticisms are made of the Serious Fraud Office, we will have no hesitation in acting robustly and promptly. That is why, for example, just yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General ensured that an investigation was set up in respect of the findings in the Unaoil case.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the CPS in handling cases where the defendant has a mental health condition or disorder.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

New and refreshed training has been rolled out for prosecutors, information sharing between agencies is being improved and the CPS is developing a mental health flag on its case management system. These positive steps were recently recognised in a criminal justice joint inspection report.

[Selaine Saxby]

Does my hon. and learned Friend welcome the greater use of mental health treatment requirement orders for offenders subject to community orders or suspended sentences? Will he engage with Ministers across justice and health services to ensure that sufficient funding is in place to enable the long-term adoption of this approach in Devon?

[The Solicitor General]

Yes and yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to welcome the use of mental health treatment requirement orders, because they provide courts in Devon and elsewhere with a powerful tool to rehabilitate offenders at the same time as ensuring they are properly punished for their crimes. Thanks to record support through the NHS long-term plan funding, plans are on track to introduce primary care MHTRs to half of England by 2023.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question, the one and only Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In addition to those with mental health disorders, people with other disabilities such as hearing impairment require additional support in court. This House has taken steps to make that happen for those who are hearing impaired. Can the Minister advise what services are deemed necessary for trial proceedings to take place for those with hearing impairment disabilities?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Whether someone is a victim, a witness or a defendant, they have the right to be able to hear what is going on in court. There are of course facilities already in place—hearing loops and so on—but the court retains the discretion to ensure that special measures are in place so that defendants can have the right to a fair trial and witnesses can have their voices heard.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of the Russian sanctions legislation the Government said would be put in place by 10 February.

[The Minister for Europe (James Cleverly)]

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out on 31 January, we are now laying legislation to broaden the designation criteria for the Russia sanctions regime. As Minister for Europe, I have signed the legislation that we will lay before Parliament and intend to come into force this afternoon. We are toughening and expanding our sanctions regime in response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This legislation will significantly broaden the range of people, businesses and other entities that we can sanction in response to any further Russian aggression. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, this will amount to the toughest sanctions regime against Russia that we have had and mark the biggest change in our approach since leaving the European Union.

The Foreign Secretary is in Moscow as we speak, calling on Russia to pursue a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We have made it clear, however, that if Russia continues to ignore calls to de-escalate and respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, it will face serious consequences. Alongside the United States and other international partners, the UK is preparing an unprecedented package of co-ordinated sanctions that mean those who share responsibility for Russia’s actions will bear a heavy cost.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

I do not need to remind anyone in the House of the seriousness of the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders. We stand united in opposition to Russian aggression and in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. We urgently want to de-escalate this crisis and we support diplomatic efforts to achieve that goal, but our diplomacy must be matched by deterrence. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament the Government’s plan to put in place what she called

“the toughest sanctions regime against Russia”.

She said:

“The package that we are putting forward in legislation will be in place by 10 February”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2022; Vol. 708, c. 56-58.]

It is now 10 February and no such legislation has been put in place. As the Foreign Secretary meets her counterpart in Moscow, media reports suggest that the plan has fallen through. The House rises today, leaving no parliamentary time for the Government to put the legislation in place until after the recess.

This raises very troubling questions about the risk that Russian action against Ukraine could take place without the necessary legal measures in place to allow Britain to respond. What is the reason for the delay? What reassurance can the Minister offer this House that without the legislation in place the Government could implement severe sanctions if they are needed?

Promises made to this House should be kept. Hon. Members deserve the opportunity to scrutinise and debate these measures, which need to be in place. I do not want these sanctions to join the long list of measures to counter Russian aggression that have been ignored or delayed, such as the economic crime Bill, the reform of Companies House, the register of overseas entities Bill, the foreign agent registration law, and the new counter-espionage laws—the list goes on. With 130,000 troops threatening Ukraine, the Opposition stand ready to work with the Government in the national interest to get the appropriate measures in place. We can only do so if the Government keep their promise to bring forth this sanctions legislation—where is it?

[James Cleverly]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s unanimity of voice with regard to his opposition to Russia’s aggressive actions on the border of Ukraine. He is absolutely right that in times of high tension like this it is incredibly important that our allies and others understand that there really is unanimity of purpose across the House, and I thank him for that.

As I said in my statement, I have signed the legislation that we intend to lay in Parliament to come into force this afternoon. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary is pursuing the diplomatic pressure face to face with Russia. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, senior officials and I have regular interactions with our friends and allies both in Europe and across the Atlantic, and I can assure the House that they regularly express gratitude for the robustness of the UK’s approach. We will continue to pursue a diplomatic track, but the Foreign Secretary is making it clear to the Russians as we speak that if they miss the opportunity to de-escalate, there will be repercussions.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend is proceeding with the long-awaited additional sanctions, and I look forward to the statutory instrument coming to the House as soon as possible. What does my right hon. Friend believe is the position in relation to the Minsk II agreements, and what has been Her Majesty’s Government’s reaction to the proposals made by President Macron? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they could in fact make the situation more perilous for Ukraine?

[James Cleverly]

We have regularly called on Russia to abide by the commitments to which it has previously voluntarily subscribed, and there is no justification for the aggressive posture that it is now displaying on the borders of Ukraine. We and France, as well as other members of NATO, speak regularly; indeed, just yesterday I was on a multilateral call with French representatives. We are co-ordinating our approach and our language and ensuring that we understand and calibrate our actions in concert, and I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that that will continue to be our approach on this very serious issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Owen Thomson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I echo much of what was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I find this situation frustrating in many ways. Obviously we all want to do everything we can to counter Russian aggression, and we all want to be doing what we can to support legislation that would make that possible. But the action taken today of laying such legislation without our being given any opportunity for scrutiny or debate, or even knowing what it can achieve, makes it very difficult for us to help the Government and to approach this constructively, which is what we want to do. I must be brutally honest and say that it is a challenging task to come up with a series of questions about legislation that we have not yet seen, although we all want see that legislation work.

Can the Minister assure us that whatever the legislation does include, it will enable actions to be taken to tackle the improper use of, for instance, Scottish limited partnerships—colleagues of mine have been calling for that for years—and the multitude of other avenues through which Russian money is being used to influence and change attitudes, as well as the cyber-attacks that are carried out across these islands and in other European countries? Without seeing the legislation, it is difficult for our support to be as full as we might have wanted it to be.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Our actions are closely co-ordinated and calibrated with the actions of our international partners. The UK has made it clear, as indeed have our friends and allies internationally, that if Russia were to pursue further aggressive actions in Ukraine, that would come at a huge cost. Of course, as with all conflicts, there would be a human cost—there would be casualties and fatalities both on the Russian side and, inevitably, in Ukraine—and we are desperately seeking to avoid that. However, if Russia does not heed our call to de-escalate, there will be meaningful sanctions in response. There will be costs. As I have said, throughout all this we are co-ordinating very closely with our international allies, and ensuring that our response is in place should Russia not heed our calls to de-escalate.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that we are at the “most dangerous moment” in the next few days. I do not expect a detailed answer to my question but, to bring home the devastating consequences should military aggression occur and to bring home that we will not tolerate this increased military aggression against the sovereign nation of Ukraine, will we consider taking cyber-measures against Russia, not necessarily after an invasion but now?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend will be unsurprised that I am not willing to speculate on the nature or scope of the response of the Government or our allies, but Russia should understand that, if it were to attack or present further aggression towards Ukraine, there would be a meaningful response not just from the UK but from our international allies. I will not speculate further at this time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister knows full well that every single Member of this House stands foursquare with the Government alongside the people of Ukraine. We want to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, the Foreign Secretary told us that the legislation would be in place by 10 February, which is important because of the recess. We were also told that it would be an affirmative measure, which means that it would not come into force unless the House has voted for it.

The Minister is wrong to say that it will just happen this afternoon. It is completely autocratic for the Government to publish legislation without any opportunity for anybody to scrutinise it. Frankly, they have just been lazy. We are Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to sanctions in this area. When will we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the measure so that we can make sure the whole House sends the same message to Russia? At the moment, it just looks as if the Government are not governing anymore.

[James Cleverly]

I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed, I truly do. Our actions have been, at all stages, calibrated to deter Russian aggression and to act in concert and collaboration with our international partners. I appreciate that this House has complete unanimity of purpose in its desire to dissuade Russia from aggressive actions towards Ukraine. We are moving at pace to ensure, where possible, that sanctions regimes are in place ahead of this. We will continue to take actions that dissuade Russian aggression towards Ukraine, and we will always do so in close co-ordination and co-operation with our international allies.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

What happens in Ukraine, and indeed what happens in eastern Europe, matters. It matters to this House and it matters to our country’s interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if global Britain means anything, it must mean that we stand up for freedom, democracy and the rule of law?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recently returned from a trip to Washington where, across the political divide, the UK’s actions in dissuading Russian aggression have been recognised, and gratitude was expressed to me. He is right that freedom, democracy and the rule of law are foundation stone principles that we will defend. We have already given support to Ukraine, including defensive weapon systems, to help it protect itself against further Russian aggression. The expanded sanctions package is part of that message of deterrence so that Russia understands there will be repercussions if it were to pursue further aggressive actions towards Ukraine.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Despite the Russia report, despite the Opposition’s calls and despite the Government’s promises, the UK remains a destination for Russian dirty money and influence. The Minister says that the promised sanctions legislation will be in place this afternoon, although it has not been published, we are rising for recess and there is no time for a debate. Will he explain to me how we will be able to demonstrate that, as he says, sanctions will be put in place should there be any incursion or action by Russia? That is of the utmost importance to our national security and our standing.

[James Cleverly]

We have worked to ensure that this extension of the scope of potential sanctions is effective and that it displays a meaningful deterrent message to Russia. We are working to bring the measures into force this afternoon, so that they are in place as soon as practically possible. The message that I get back from the international community is that it massively values the UK’s very firm response on this issue. That is the message I received on my recent trip to Washington. It is the message I receive on calls with international partners, and we will continue to be very robust in our actions to dissuade Russian aggressio‘n.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I welcome the concerted diplomatic pressure that we are putting on Russia, with the Foreign Secretary there today, the Defence Secretary there tomorrow and the Prime Minister in Warsaw today. I also welcome the fact that we are laying this statutory instrument this afternoon. What is important with sanctions is not only that we have the legislation, but our willingness to use the sanctions, and quickly. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that we are prepared to use these sanctions, and that we will do so with alacrity if needed?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message should be heard loud and clear, and I have no doubt that as we speak my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing that on her trip to Moscow. This extended sanctions package is meaningful. If Russia was to pursue its aggressive posture towards Ukraine, there would be serious consequences, and this extension of the scope of our sanctions is absolutely part of that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The US, far from what the Minister has just said, is said to be expressing exasperation at the failure of the Government to take tough action against the flow of Russian money. On top of that, it has taken two years for the Government to take any action on the recommendations of the Russia report. This is damaging our international standing. Whatever is happening this afternoon in terms of sanctions, can he give us an undertaking that we will be tackling that Russian money and ensuring that it cannot flow?

[James Cleverly]

A number of Members speak with seeming great authority on the tone or the thinking of our allies. I have just returned from Washington, where I have spoken with elected Members and senior officials in the White House, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United States recognises the robust position that the UK is taking through the extension of our sanctions regime and that we will ensure, if Russia pursues an aggressive posture, that there are consequences that are meaningful.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It seems to me that for the first time in my adult life, it is our values—the values of this country and the values of the west—that are being challenged in a meaningful way in Russia and, I am sorry to say, elsewhere in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in that light that we should see what is happening on the borders of Ukraine, and it is also in that light that we should respond in terms of sanctions?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The UK is the destination of choice for Russian criminals and kleptocrats who then use their wealth to silence journalists and avoid scrutiny, including by launching endless oppressive lawsuits. Why should we have any confidence that the Minister’s Government and party, which have done nothing to counter that—indeed, the issue has grown year on year—will suddenly impose meaningful sanctions? The US said that there was “dismay and frustration” at the failure to tackle it.

[James Cleverly]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have already made. I have just returned from Washington and I assure the House that the UK has been recognised and thanked for the robust position that it has taken, is taking and has signalled that it is willing to take.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to having signed the legislation and I look forward to seeing it this afternoon. That is part of the Government’s clear and continuous message to Russia that any further incursion into Ukraine would be a huge strategic error. NATO must be united in calling for a diplomatic way forward, so can he confirm that the UK Government have called for NATO partners to be as vocal as the United Kingdom has been in delivering that message to the Kremlin and, further, to match our defence spending commitments?

[James Cleverly]

Last month, I attended the NATO Russia council on behalf of the United Kingdom, and the unanimity of voice with which the NATO allies condemned the aggressive posture that Russia has taken towards Ukraine was striking. Defence spending is a broader point of discussion. We are incredibly proud of the fact that the UK maintains that 2% or more on defence spending. We will ensure that we are as passionate in our diplomatic attempts as we are in our passion to support our friends and allies in NATO, including the eastern NATO allies that have borders with Russia.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

If, God forbid, Vladimir Putin is watching the parliamentary channel at the moment, does the Minister think that he will get the sense that the Government and the House are acting urgently? I am not getting that clearly. There is an all-party desire to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis and for us to be seen to act as firmly as possible on sanctions. I ask him to ask someone in No. 10 or elsewhere to give a sense of urgency to it. All parties support it, so the Government should get on with it.

[James Cleverly]

The feedback that I get, not necessarily from the Opposition but certainly from the international community, is that it recognises and is grateful for the posture that the UK has taken with regard to Russia’s accumulation of troops on the Ukrainian border. That is the message that I have been getting loud and clear from across the international community.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the Minister understand that after years of delay, yet again the Government’s rhetoric on the issue does not seem to match their actions on Russian money in this country? The Foreign Secretary is in Russia today, supposedly putting a very strong message to the Kremlin, and the inaction and inability to bring forward legislation to this place so that we can scrutinise it undermines that message.

[James Cleverly]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the situation, because in conversation after conversation that I have had, in the United States and with other friends and allies across the world, they recognise the work that the UK is doing and are grateful for it. On the expansion of the scope of potential sanctions against Russia, we are demonstrating to the Russians that we are serious in our actions as well.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Russian troops have been massing on the border for months. Meanwhile, Putin and his friends have been behaving like international gangsters and throwing their weight around for years. Why leave it until now? Why draft a measure and, hopefully—we have not seen it yet—put it before the House just a few hours before the recess, if we are lucky? From what the Minister is saying, however, because he has not really answered the question, it sounds more and more like it will come into force after the recess. In the meantime, there could be an asset flight and Russian troops going into Ukraine.

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the actions that we are taking are intended to come into force this afternoon. Our posture towards Russia has been consistent. We have made it clear for some time—as the Foreign Secretary did on 31 January—that the UK intends to increase the scope of our sanctions regime so that we can take meaningful action, in co-ordination and concert with international partners. That is intended to send a clear message to Russia that its aggressive posture is unacceptable, that it needs to de-escalate and that, if it were to pursue aggressive actions against Ukraine, there would be meaningful consequences.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I really do not understand why this is all so last-minute. Is the Minister comfortable with his Government’s approach of ignoring the recommendations of the Russia report? It is important to note that the Intelligence and Security Committee—a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament—made clear recommendations after taking a lot of evidence and scrutinising the issue of Russian influence on this country. Why have those recommendations not been taken up by his Government?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said a number of times, in my interactions with our friends and allies both on my recent trip to the United States of America when I represented the UK at the NATO-Russia Council and on international calls, the UK’s firm posture towards Russia has been recognised, and our international partners are grateful for it. To ensure that our sanctions regime and any potential sanctions that we impose are effective, co-ordination with our international partners is incredibly important. I am intensely proud of the position that the UK has taken in support of Ukraine, in support of the international rules-based order and in support of our friends and allies around the world. The UK will continue to be at the forefront of attempts to de-escalate the situation and support the Ukrainian people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. Has he had communications with other NATO leaders regarding Macron’s lone-wolf approach to Putin and ensuing comments that demonstrate a shift from standing NATO policy towards reaction to potential attack? Will he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to NATO’s approach against Russian aggression?

[James Cleverly]

The UK remains a committed member of NATO, and I assure the hon. Member and the House that the UK, France, the United States of America and other members of the Quint speak regularly. My most recent conversation with international partners was yesterday, when we had a detailed debrief of President Macron’s talks with Vladimir Putin. We work in close co-ordination with international partners, and I assure him that that close co-ordination, whether through sanctions or our diplomatic efforts, will continue.

Government Contracts: Randox Laboratories

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

11:03

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the process for awarding Government contracts to Randox Laboratories Ltd, following the release of documents in response to the Humble Address of 17 November 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

In response to the greatest public health emergency that we have faced for a generation, the Government engaged with many businesses—big and small—as part of an unprecedented national effort. On 3 February, we responded to the Humble Address and laid the documents before the House. We are committed to transparency and helping the House perform its valuable scrutiny, and the Department dedicated significant resources to reviewing about 11,000 records to identify the 35 relevant documents. They show how we took every possible step to build the huge infrastructure for testing that we now have in this country—the biggest testing programme in Europe. The programme has done so much to stop the spread of this deadly virus and given us all hope that we can learn to live with covid-19.

Randox has been globally recognised in the diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years and even as early as March 2020 had lab-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19. Robust rules and processes are in place to ensure that all contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that any potential conflicts of interest with respect to commercial matters are appropriately managed. Direct awards, such as in this case, are permitted by public contract regulations for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events. I am sure that no hon. Member would deny that the situation was one of extreme urgency.

As the House would expect, Ministers of course have a role in approving contracts, but their approval relies on the impartial evaluation conducted by civil servants. I reinforce to hon. Members that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts, and that the documents given to the House show no evidence that any of those principles have been breached. Instead, they plainly show that we did everything in our power to keep this country safe at a time of crisis, as the British people would expect.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Randox files published last week, later than the Government said they would be—that was not acknowledged by the Minister—paint a picture of a Conservative Government who are simply unfit for office. That Conservative Government played fast and loose with public money. They handed Randox a £133 million contract without competition. The Minister talked about every possible step being taken in testing infrastructure, but let us remember what happened. Randox tried to requisition equipment from universities that, because of the files that were released, we now know had to be stopped. Vital tests in care homes were voided, and 750,000 tests were recalled. The Government’s response was to hand it a second contract worth £350 million, again without competition.

We now know that both the civil service chief operating officer and the Minister, Lord Agnew, sounded a warning alarm. That Minister said that the Department was paying “dramatically over the odds” for Randox’s services, but the Government ploughed on. Why was he ignored, and did the Department do what he asked, and introduce a competitive tender process by March 2021? There does not seem to have been the operation of robust rules that the Minister referred to, or an impartial evaluation. Was that put into place or not?

Secondly, there are still no minutes of that crucial meeting on 9 April, just a rough draft email sent seven months later. Two years on, the Department cannot even explain who was there. We now know that Health Ministers held another four meetings that were never declared in the Register. How many more secret meetings were there?

That brings us to Owen Paterson who, as we now know from these papers, is called “O-Patz”—really, Mr Speaker, is there any clearer sign that we are in the twilight days of this Government? The files show that this former MP, a paid advocate for Randox, was arranging meetings with the Health Secretary in the Division Lobby, a place to which only MPs have access, and where it is impossible for civil servants to join them—hardly the appropriate management of commercial interests that the Minister referred to. Will she explain what was agreed in those discussions, and will she correct her Department’s claim that there is no evidence of any breach of the rules?

[Maggie Throup]

I make no apologies for how we as a country rose to the challenge that we faced in early 2020. I think that sometimes we forget what this country—indeed, the world—was going through. We must remember those days, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that what we have put in place since will ensure that we can cope far better in the future. We do need to learn lessons, and we will learn lessons.

However, one of the most important lessons that I take from when we worked together is that we can do incredible things. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal, and local government has been phenomenal, as has the private sector. We have all worked together and we have really worked hard, and that is why we can now see that—with the vaccine programme as well, along with the therapeutics and antivirals—we are combating this virus. We could not have come this far without everybody working together, and this country’s testing structure has been crucial in helping us to get through this time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in this huge effort both at testing sites and working in the lab, and everybody who has come forward to get tested to keep their loved ones safe.

I would like to respond to some of the questions posed by the hon. Lady. My Department did inform you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to meet our initial deadline for responding to the Humble Address. That was mainly due to the surge of omicron at that time, and the way that my Department had to respond to ensure that we kept our citizens safe from that variant surge.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Randox kits that were recalled in the summer of 2020. It was on 15 July that year that NHS Test and Trace was notified that some kits produced by Randox laboratories may not have met the required standard for coronavirus testing. As a precautionary measure, while this was investigated further, NHS Test and Trace paused the use of these Randox test kits with immediate effect. It was on 7 August that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed Randox to recall the Randox covid-19 home testing kits with a specific catalogue number. That decision was taken as a precautionary measure to prevent any further use of these Randox tests. The risk to safety was low, and test results from Randox kits were not affected. An independent assessment in June 2020 had placed Randox ahead of other laboratories, and Randox was meeting its delivery targets by September 2020. We were very precautionary in the measures we put in place to ensure that we were protecting everybody at that time.

I did note the point of order that the hon Lady made this week about the meeting on 9 April 2020, which she has raised again today. The note was taken during the meeting, and it was saved in a draft folder of the private secretary who took the note. When the Department received a freedom of information request for the minute of the meeting, the private secretary found the minute and shared it. For clarity, “note” and “minute” mean an official record of a meeting; the words mean the same from that point of view.

I reiterate that there are robust rules and processes in place that ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the public procurement regulations of 2015, and that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts at all. That is a really important principle that the Government work on now, and have worked on probably for decades, and that principle will never be broken.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

You will remember, Mr Speaker, as the right hon. Member for Chorley, and every Member in this House will remember, the enormous pressure we were all put under, barely two years ago, to try to find businesses and organisations that could quickly produce much-needed equipment and services to assist the people of our country during an unprecedented global pandemic. Can I put on record my appreciation of the enormous work that the Government did, and does the Minister agree with me that, had it not been for their work, we would not have been able to protect and save the lives of so many people in our country?

[Maggie Throup]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s recognition, remembering where we were barely two years ago, of how we have moved on since then. We have put in place a test and trace programme that is renowned across Europe and across the world, and we have a world-leading vaccination programme as well as the amazing work done on therapeutics and antivirals. Coming together in the national effort has been vital, which is why I make no apologies for my Department’s looking at every opportunity to ensure that everybody could get tested who needed to be tested, that everybody could be jabbed who needed to be jabbed, and that the right therapeutics were in place to keep people safe.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

These secret communications reveal that Paterson corresponded directly with the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), in January 2020 about the services that Randox could provide. Then, without competition, Government contracts were issued to provide Randox with equipment if it struggled to get it, offering loans of equipment that were drafted on the same day as the emails were exchanged. Nice work if you can get it, eh? In the exchanges, Paterson repeatedly noted that he was a paid consultant to Randox, but the Government seemingly overlooked that fact for months until The Guardian revealed he had lobbied for Randox to get the contracts. Internally, Paterson then asked the Health Minister to kill the story once and for all. Can the Minister explain to me how that is not institutional corruption? Nobody trusts this Government. They are rule breakers and system cheaters. Does this whole case with Randox not just prove that the Government are interested only in helping their friends?

[Maggie Throup]

Once again, I make no apologies for the Department working to look at every opportunity to make sure that we had the right mechanisms in place to keep our country safe. As I said earlier, Randox was a recognised company in the diagnostic industry. The hon. Gentleman talks about how he perceives the Department working. The fact is that we have released all the documents. As I said earlier, the 11,000 documents were looked at to identify what was relevant. We have been very open in putting that information in the House of Commons Library and responding to the Humble Address.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The documents seem to show that there was a meeting with the former Member for North Shropshire and the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the Division Lobby. Will the Minister respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)? Did that meeting take place?

[Maggie Throup]

The evidence has been put in the Library and the information is there. I want to make it clear that my Department went through as much evidence as it could. As I said earlier, we were at the start of a pandemic; nobody had ever seen anything like it before. I make no apologies for making sure that we had everything in place to keep the country safe.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Oh dear; I almost do not know where to start. I have to be very careful, because the Standards Committee may well want to return to some of these issues and I will not stray into that territory. There is no rule that says that a Minister cannot be inappropriately lobbied, but there are rules saying that Members are not allowed to engage in paid advocacy. We may need to look at the rules to make sure there is a better way of dealing with this issue. I am not making any allegations about the Health Secretary or anybody else. I just wonder: when the Minister voted to protect Owen Paterson on 3 November, did she know about all of this or not?

[Maggie Throup]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I look forward to the outcome of the work of his Committee. The code of conduct for MPs rightly remains a matter for Parliament. Today, we are talking about the Humble Address that my Department responded to, quite rightly. There are lessons that can be learned. We are now looking at making sure we have mechanisms in place for the future. Standards are in place in the House and it is quite right that hon. Members meet those standards. I look forward to the outcome of your Committee’s work to make sure we have a rounded approach and that the situation with Mr Paterson does not happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

It is Mr Bryant’s Committee, rather than mine.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It really is quite remarkable: what the Minister has outlined in her response is what should have happened during the course of the pandemic and what has been proven not to have happened. Instead, the situation has been epitomised by Tory donors receiving billions of pounds in contracts, Ministers losing mobile phones when their Department and the law have tried to find out what has gone on, and decent companies with great experience in this field—I am thinking of Arco up in the north-east—being left with next to nothing. How can the Minister stand there and defend the indefensible?

[Maggie Throup]

As I said, we follow the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and in procuring goods and services we are committed to fair and reasonable timetables and procedures, and encourage open competition wherever possible. However, we were in the middle of a pandemic.

Let me go through the process in a bit more detail. Awarding bodies use three main procurement routes in awarding contracts. First, there are direct awards without competition using emergency procurement rules, and I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we were in an emergency situation. Secondly, there are direct awards using variations to existing contracts. The third route is awards from framework agreements—both direct awards and mini competitions—where suppliers have previously undergone a competitive process to be appointed to the framework. As we move out of the pandemic, we will obviously get back to business as usual and use these other mechanisms.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am sure that I am not the only one in the House who is finding this utterly excruciating. The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say in one breath that she makes no apology and in the next breath say that the Government are going to learn lessons. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked her a simple and direct question about the meeting on 5 February. Did it happen—yes or no?

[Maggie Throup]

The evidence that we produced in response to the Humble Address has been laid in the Library.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The chief operating officer of the civil service requested the restoration of competitive tendering by March 2021. Will the Minister confirm that that did not happen, tell us how many more contracts were issued without tender after that date, and explain why the emergency procurement rules are still in use almost a year after the deadline?

[Maggie Throup]

There is a lot of detail in that question. If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady with answers.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am finding this really rather difficult, for the same reasons as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Has the Minister actually read what has been laid in the Library? If she has, will she enlighten us as to what it says about the meeting in the Lobby?

[Maggie Throup]

I reassure the House that I did read the documents before they were laid in the Library.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Randox cashed in on covid contracts; its profits jumped from £12 million to £50 million, and as the money rolled in the company was re-registered in the Isle of Man. Does the Minister think that tax on UK covid contracts should be paid in the UK?

[Maggie Throup]

That is really for the Treasury to look at, but I come back again to the fact that Randox was an established company in diagnostic testing and that at the time we looked at which businesses could deliver our testing requirements. I am delighted that since then we have built up our own additional testing structure; in fact, later today I will be visiting the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa to see the amazing testing work that we have set up there under the UK Health Security Agency.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

There were four meetings between Health Ministers and Randox that were not registered. Does the Minister accept that, if she had taken part in unregistered meetings of that kind, she would have breached the ministerial code?

[Maggie Throup]

I register all my meetings, as I should do.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

This is agonising and frankly embarrassing. The Minister has been sent here to state repeatedly that we were in an emergency situation and a global pandemic, and she makes no apology. Does this scandal not just further prove that this Government are interested only in helping their friends to get richer?

[Maggie Throup]

I reiterate what I said earlier: we have robust rules and processes in place to ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the Public Procurement Regulations 2015, which I have also outlined in further detail. Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Leader of the House, Mark Spencer.

11:26

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I would be delighted.

Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 22 February—Remaining stages of the Charities Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 23 February—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 February—Debate on a motion on the UK’s relationship with Russia and China, followed by general debate on the matter of the UK Government recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 February—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 February will include:

Monday 28 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet I will briefly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my predecessor as Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council. During his time in post, he was instrumental in guiding parliamentary business through the pandemic. It may come as some surprise to colleagues that he was the leading advocate for the digital revolution in Parliament and a pioneer of the hybrid proceedings, and, to be fair, he ensured that the House and its Committees were able to sit throughout the pandemic.

My right hon. Friend also oversaw the Government’s delivery of the legislative programme over the past two and a half years, including ensuring that all necessary legislation was in place ahead of our departure from the European Union. He took his role extremely seriously; he was an ardent champion of Back Benchers, not least ensuring that all hon. Members who brought up issues at business questions had those raised with the relevant Secretaries of State. Those are huge strides that I will have to step into. I have huge respect for my predecessor and I hope I can fill his shoes. I have an enormous amount of respect for him and I think of him as a true friend.

My door will always be open to anyone who wants to speak to me. I especially hope that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) will come through that door, and that we can have a positive relationship in the best interests of the House and its Members. I can assure the House that I will look to carry on my predecessor’s commitment to ensuring that those who work on the estate are treated with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with the House of Commons Commission, where I will look to build on recent work to ensure the efficient and effective running of the House for the sake of its Members and all who work here.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I warmly welcome the new Leader of the House to his post. I thank him for the forthcoming business and look forward to working with him. Also in my line of sight is the new Government Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and I welcome him to his place as well.

I thank the previous Leader of the House for our time working together. I note that he is taking up his new role as the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency. I was interested to find out more about that role, so I had a look on the ministerial webpage, only to find—certainly when I last looked, and I had been refreshing the screen all morning—that there seemed to be no responsibilities listed. I know from experience that that might suit him, so I wish him well.

This is Race Equality Week. Hate crime is rising in Britain. Race is now a factor in more than seven out of 10 hate crimes recorded in England. Can the Leader of the House explain what the Government are doing to tackle this? Religious hate crime is also rising, particularly against British Muslims, so can the right hon. Gentleman also demonstrate his personal commitment to tackling that by scheduling in Government time a debate on Islamophobia?

There are 14,000 cases of fraud every day and millions of cases of fraud every year. Each day, thousands of people are scammed out of hard-earned savings. Yet we have a Business Secretary who thinks fraud is not a real crime. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor is happy to write off £4.3 billion of fraudulent loans.

Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who does not seem to understand his own Government’s record on tackling crime, claiming last week that they have been “cutting crime by 14%,” when that does not seem to be quite the case. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there is actually

“a 14% increase in total crime, driven by a 47% increase in fraud and computer misuse.”

This causes misery, as well as financial ruin, for many people. It seems to me that this indicates a Government that are both soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Prime Minister to come here and correct that record about crime statistics?

Families up and down the country are facing a cost of living crisis, with energy bills set to rise by more than £700 per year per household. Meanwhile, oil and gas producers are making over £700 profit per second. Instead of helping working families, this Government are choosing to load them up with debt. The Government’s forced loan—the so-called discount—means that households will actually end up forking out an extra £19 billion on their bills next year. Meanwhile, the Chancellor is pretending that he is giving us a discount. Given that the Government appear to be keen on “Buy now, pay later” schemes, would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this?

Labour’s plan would keep bills low enough, through a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas profits, and all households getting £200 off their bills, with an extra £400 for those who need it most. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government are not backing a windfall tax that would help fund a cut in VAT on energy bills and ease the burden on working people?

I asked the previous Leader of the House several times for the online harms Bill. We have had a series of updates, but no actual legislation. Last year the Prime Minister said the Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas, then it was just Second Reading, and then there was a vague commitment that it would happen at some point during the Session. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee has reported and we have had a debate, but nothing is forthcoming on the business. Can the new Leader of the House enlighten us about the location of the Bill?

Finally, as I have to say each week—unfortunately, nothing seems to change—this Government are out of touch, out of ideas and out of control. A decade of dither, their delay and their incompetence has left working people paying the price.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about my predecessor. He has gone off to give us those Brexit dividends and find the benefits of Brexit. They are easy to find, to be honest, and I think he will be quite successful. Instead of criticising and being negative about Brexit, it is time the Labour party embraced Brexit, understood that the British people voted for Brexit and got on the bandwagon with us. Come and give us the Brexit dream, and let us go together, support the previous Leader of the House and move forward.

The hon. Lady mentioned race crime. I think everybody in the House will recognise that race crime is a terrible offence, and we should all do our part in condemning anyone who is involved in racial crimes. I wholly accept the point that she makes. I would be delighted to work together, in any way we can—we have a responsibility not only as Members of Parliament, but as citizens, to call out racial hatred whenever we see it in all its forms.

Turning to fraud, everybody will recognise what a terrible crime fraud is. As Members of Parliament, we can help. There are very evil people out there who are trying to steal people’s savings and attack our constituents, but we can help by highlighting some of those scams and by working to bring down not only fraud, but all crime. The Government’s record on crime is actually pretty good. If we look particularly at the statistics on violent crime and burglary, we see that the number of those crimes in our constituencies is coming down.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister coming to make a statement. I say gently to her that if we look at knife crime in the city of London, we see that when the Prime Minister was the Mayor of London, he tackled knife crime and it came down. Under the current Labour Mayor, those statistics have gone in the wrong direction. She should support the Government and support our ambitions to recruit more police officers, on which we are delivering, and together we can tackle crime.

Energy costs are clearly a very big issue for our constituents. The Government have done an awful lot to try to help with the pain of global energy costs. We have put £9.1 billion into the energy bill rebate scheme, with a £200 discount on bills this autumn. The Government are taking a number of steps. I am not saying that there is not more that we can do, and I understand the squeeze on people, on hard-working families, but the best way out of poverty is through hard work, good jobs and good careers. That is what the Government are delivering. I say to the hon. Lady: get behind the Government and support us as we do that, because reducing the tax burden on the lowest-paid and helping out those on universal credit is what we are delivering.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the online harms Bill. The Bill has been through pre-legislative scrutiny and that report has been received. I am sure that the House will be updated in the usual way when I announce business in future. At this moment in time, she will just have to chill her beans, but it is coming at some point.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

We are expecting a written ministerial statement today on the one piece of covid legislation that we do not yet know a date for revocation—namely, the provision of early abortion pills through the post without face-to-face consultation. Depending on what that statement says, will the Leader of the House consider making time available in the forthcoming business for an oral statement, so that those of us who are appalled by the practice can make the case for a swift return to the status quo ante?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Of course, the Government take that very seriously, and I understand the strength of feeling on these issues—[Interruption.] I accept that—I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the argument and both sides of the House. The Department for Health and Social Care will look at that and I am sure that it will update the House on any decisions before they are made.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Well, look who we have now—I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member on his new role and note that he is now my sixth Leader of the House in my short tenure here as shadow Leader of the House on the Scottish National party Benches. I have learned a few things about being Leader of the House over the course of the years. Usually, the position is reserved for one of two categories: those on the way down or those who are difficult to place. I will leave him to decide which of these categories he falls into.

Although the right hon. Member could not possibly remain as Chief Whip after blackmailgate and after being the initiator of all the current difficulties by trying to lead recalcitrant and reluctant Back Benchers over the top to defend the indefensible by trying to save his pal, Owen Paterson, the fact that he has been made Leader of the House is almost unbelievable. It is like moving Dracula from Minister for blood supply to Minister for blood transfusions. But we wish him well. He must not just know where the bodies are buried; he is also brushing off the dirt on his grubby overalls.

It is also right that we pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). How we will all miss his affectatious patronisation. At least one good thing has come out of the oxymoron of his new job: one person has been gainfully employed by the Government’s disastrous Brexit.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hopefully we might get on to the business. This is very funny, but come on.

[Pete Wishart]

Can we have a debate about the lorry park that is now the county of Kent? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is walking up and down the queue saying, “Hark! The sunlit uplands are just around the corner.”

There is one thing that the new Leader of the House could do to show that he is different in this job, and that is to resolve the case of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). She has had to come down here just to vote, against her doctors’ advice, travelling 800 miles to put a pass against a card reader. It is madness. Not only is that bad for her, but it is bad for this House. It makes us look callous, it makes us look indifferent and it makes us look heartless. Can the Leader of the House show that he is not just the Mogg without the expensive classical education, and get this resolved for Members who are sick or recovering from illness?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about my predecessor, who did warn me that the hon. Gentleman was quite an angry man. Every week he turns up here in a very angry state, and I am concerned about that. When I meet him outside he seems to be very calm, but as he crosses the line he seems to have this huge anger. It is my personal mission to try to soothe him. I am the Sudocrem to his nappy rash. We will work together and I will calm him as we move forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport, and there will be an opportunity for him to question the Secretary of State for Transport in early March. He also mentioned the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I met her yesterday—she came to my office—and I fully understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, and her predicament. We await the Procedure Committee report on how we can assist and support colleagues who find themselves in those circumstances, but these are very delicate matters that do need consideration. My door is genuinely open to a conversation about how we can try to solve that for the benefit of the whole House. That is a conversation that I am happy to take forward with him in the future.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Leader of the House? The Secretary of State for Transport recently announced that there would be a competition to find a new headquarters for Great British Railways. My constituency of North West Cambridgeshire comprises the southern half of the city of Peterborough, and I am in no doubt that it would be the ideal location for a new headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend kindly provide time in the House for a debate in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) could put forward the case as to why the city of Peterborough should be the location of the new headquarters for Great British Railways?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, for Cambridgeshire and for Peterborough. I understand that the Great British Railways transition team is running the competition, and I wish him every success in his bid. I also note that the Government are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion through the integrated rail plan.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his place and to his role as Secretary of State for the application of Sudocrem.

He will have picked this up from his predecessor, but I remind him that the Backbench Business Committee already has a number of date-sensitive applications on the stocks, particularly for the first two weeks in March, with Welsh affairs and St David’s Day in the first week of March and International Women’s Day in the second week. We are anticipating a couple of days to debate departmental spending through estimates day debates, and applications for those debate slots must be made to the Backbench Business Committee by the deadline of 2.30 pm on Friday 25 February. We understand that supplementary estimates will be published in the last week of February.

I met the new president and the new general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers yesterday, and they wanted me to raise an issue in National Apprenticeship Week. I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that this is National Apprenticeship Week, which is a cause for celebration, but seafarer training policies in the maritime 2050 strategy and in mechanisms such as the tonnage tax are just not working to recruit and train UK ratings. Far too many shipowners bring in crew from overseas on low pay, sometimes with dreadful conditions of service, rather than training young people in our port towns and cities. Can we have a statement on what urgent action will be taken, including through the tonnage tax, to boost rating apprenticeships across the UK?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. I encourage all colleagues to engage with the Committee, which is a great opportunity for them to raise any topic they like on the Floor of the House. His chairing of the Committee is exemplary. Of course, I will work with him to try to ensure those time-sensitive debates happen at a time of his choosing.

The Government have a very proud record on getting young people into apprenticeships, on which we can still do more. We need to reflect on how our young people get from school into careers. University is not the route for every young person, and an apprenticeship programme is a great opportunity for young people to get into the jobs market and to get a great career for themselves. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Yesterday, in Oxfordshire, there was exciting news of a major breakthrough in our quest to develop nuclear fusion. The scientists at Culham have more than doubled the amount of fusion energy generated compared with previous tests, and Stroud and the south-west’s Severn Edge bid has been shortlisted for Berkeley and Oldbury to be the home of the first fusion energy prototype. I am biased, but we definitely have the best bid to deliver this source of low-carbon energy for the country. Will my right hon. Friend, with his brand new powers, grant a debate in Government time to discuss the UK’s scientific developments, particularly in fusion energy?

[Mark Spencer]

I have to confess that my knowledge of nuclear fusion is limited. My only experience is from “Spider-Man 2”, where it all seemed to go a little wrong. It says here that nuclear fusion has the potential to be a world-changing energy source, and I have no reason to doubt that. I recognise my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for investment in her constituency, and I sincerely hope it works.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I wonder whether I can seek his guidance. It appears that charities get VAT exemptions when they buy defibrillators, but community groups do not. How best can I bring this to the attention of the Treasury Bench so that the anomaly can be rectified?

[Mark Spencer]

This is a very important issue. I recognise that a lot of people on both sides of the House have done a lot of work to highlight the need for defibrillators—I have been contacted by the Oliver King Foundation about a tragic case. This would be a worthy debate to have either in Westminster Hall or as an Adjournment debate, and I know it would be very popular.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. There is understandable public interest in the allegation of gatherings at Downing Street, but does he share my concern about how this subject has recently been taught at Welbeck Primary School in Nottingham? According to the school’s tweet about the lesson, children appear to have been taught allegations as fact—Mr Speaker, they also appear to have been taught that you have been biased—with no alternative view given. I have written to the Education Secretary to ask him to investigate whether the headteacher’s duty of impartiality under the Education Act 1996 has been breached in this case. In the meantime, might we have parliamentary time to debate the teaching of sensitive political subjects in schools so that teachers do not cross the line?

[Mark Spencer]

I know that you are quite capable of defending yourself, Mr Speaker, but any suggestion that you are biased should be robustly repudiated. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Education on our democratic processes and establishments is an important part of how young people learn about how our democracy works, but the subject has to be taught with sensitivity and without political bias. Any suggestion that there is political bias is unfortunate.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Leader of the House, whom I welcome to his place, will be aware that, this week, a Mauritian delegation set sail on a planned expedition to the Chagos islands with a number of expelled Chagossians on board. Members will be aware that, in 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that continued British occupation of the archipelago was illegal. Given the injustices that this population has suffered, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate in Government time on the Chagossians’ right to return, on progress in delivering the compensation package and on the future of that island chain?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 8 March. This is an important issue. Matters of immigration are very sensitive and I encourage the hon. Lady to either write to the Foreign Secretary or challenge her during FCDO questions.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

London accounts for 13% of the UK’s population and 22% of its gross domestic product. The issue of how London is governed is important to the whole country. We used to have debates in Government time on London and its governance. Can we restore that situation, so that we can examine why Conservative Bromley is debt-free, while Labour Croydon is bankrupt and required an £120 million bail-out; and why the Labour Mayor increased his press office’s budget by 33%, while shipping the London Assembly, which, in statute, has a duty to scrutinise him, 8 miles down the river, out of the centre, in order to marginalise it? Are those not matters that we should be able to debate in the House?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question highlighting those issues. If I can facilitate such a debate, I will be delighted to, but of course there are other routes open to him: he might want a Westminster Hall debate; he can apply for an Adjournment debate; or he could even talk to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about getting a Backbench Business debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the new Government Chief Whip. You may not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he and I have been friends for many years; he helped me run my campaign to be Speaker, which did not go very well, obviously. I hope that he has just as much success in his forthcoming campaigns. Of course, I also welcome the new Leader of the House. May I ask him about the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that the Minister for Europe said would be laid before Parliament this afternoon? The whole House wants to help the Government introduce proper legislation, but we need proper scrutiny of it. As I understand it, the SI will go through the affirmative procedure, which means that it will not become law today, whatever the Foreign Secretary said two weeks ago; it needs the agreement of the House. We all want that to happen as soon as possible. Why did the Minister for Europe not announce today when that will happen? Why can it not happen on the Monday after next, when the House returns?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about the new Chief Whip. I, too, congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment. He not only ran the hon. Gentleman’s campaign, but assisted the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) with her bid to become leader of the Conservative party, which was equally successful.

Turning to the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that is being laid before Parliament, clearly this is a sensitive issue. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House informed on how the measures will be implemented and on what they are. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to debate the instrument. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will at some point update the House and the hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to question her.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I can see that business questions on Thursday will continue to be the highlight of the week, and I thank him for that. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Thursday regulars will miss him, even though they might not admit to it. Members from across the House have certainly told me—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)?

[Lucy Allan]

Yes, indeed. Members from across the House have told me how much they appreciate the diligence that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset showed in following up on their questions, and in highlighting their local campaigns. He was ably supported by the wonderful Leader of the House team, who we see in the Box.

Today is the last day for Members to participate in the consultation on proposed changes to standards on the conduct of MPs. Members have expressed concerns that their names could be made public and their comments used against them if they were to submit them online. Can the Leader of the House suggest a mechanism for how Members can participate in the consultation anonymously?

[Mark Spencer]

Let me put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her contributions to business questions and supporting my predecessor. It is indeed the last day for contributions to the consultation on standards. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, tells me from a sedentary position that those will be taken anonymously. I encourage all colleagues to participate in that. This is an important issue on which we need to have cross-party support on how we move forward. I look forward to the findings of the Committee and debating them in future.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will share the widespread condemnation of the animal cruelty displayed by the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma, which took place in front of a child and was filmed by the footballer’s brother, who can be heard laughing as the abuse was taking place. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his disappointment that West Ham fielded this player in the days following this incident, thereby squandering the opportunity to demonstrate that it has zero tolerance towards the abuse of defenceless animals by any of its players, no matter how good they may be at playing football?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to highlight this in the House of Commons. It was an appalling video; anybody who saw it could not help but be shocked by it. I understand that West Ham United have fined the player two weeks’ wages and donated that money to animal charities. I would gently say to Mr Zouma himself that maybe he would like to match-fund that money and donate it either to Cats Protection or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is not far from the London Stadium, where he plays. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight this shocking case—well done.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

For those who doubt that these questions are valuable, last week I raised a question on the failure of the Home Office to respond to my frequent correspondence in relation to immigration cases, and I am pleased to say that this week I have received a plethora of replies, and I thank my right hon. Friend’s predecessor for enabling that to happen. Indeed, tomorrow, an official is coming to my office to go through all the individual cases that are still outstanding.

Further to the question from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) about the abuse of and cruelty to domestic pets, my right hon. Friend—I congratulate him on his new job—is of course a farmer and looks after animals in an exemplary fashion. Can we have a statement on the Floor of the House from one of our Ministers on what measures can be taken to further protect domestic pets from this dreadful violence, which has obviously been perpetuated by a famous footballer but goes on every single day of the week throughout the years?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the response of the Home Office. I would like to take full credit for that, but I will not. He is right to raise animal cruelty. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is progressing through the House. This is something that the Government take very seriously. He mentions the fact that I am a farmer. We should be enormously proud, as UK agriculture, of the record of animal welfare within UK food production: we are world leading. As regards domestic pets, there will be lots of opportunities for that issue to be debated in future. Debates of that nature, should he apply for one, are always very popular.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his post, and to his first whingeing gits session, as business questions are affectionately known on both sides of the House.

May I support the plea from my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on racism and anti-racism? The figures for attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities in particular are rocketing for all sorts of reasons, and many of us, including me, represent both communities.

[Mark Spencer]

This is an important issue, and, as I have said, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that we get our language right in the House. Hate crime of any nature should not be tolerated. I think it is always a good thing to debate it at any point and to highlight and condemn it, as well as working with our law enforcement officers who are out there on the frontline dealing with it on a daily basis.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The good people of Sherwood must be very proud today that their Member of Parliament has risen to become Leader of the House of Commons. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position that he now holds. As one east midlands Member to another, may I ask him to confirm that he will facilitate, whenever possible, any debate in the House that seeks to highlight the great work that the Government do in helping to improve the lives of people and businesses in the east midlands?

[Chris Bryant]

Say no!

[Mark Spencer]

I think it unlikely that I am going to say no. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for Leicestershire and for the east midlands, and I shall be delighted to work with him to highlight the importance of the east midlands, to get more investment into the region, and to create more jobs and more opportunities for the next generation.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his opening statement, the new Leader of the House mentioned the £9.1 billion energy bill rebate that the Government have announced to help constituents up and down the country. Yesterday I visited small business owners in Kennington Road, in my constituency, and they told me that their energy bills were going through the roof. Some are having to take measures such as not turning on their electricity during the day when there are no customers. These are hard-working people who want their businesses to succeed. At a time when we are seeing Shell and BP make profits of £14 billion and £9 billion respectively, will the Leader of the House please consider providing Government time for us to discuss how we can help our constituents who are suffering pain now, given that this rebate will make no difference to their pockets?

[Mark Spencer]

I want those businesses to succeed as well. Everyone on the Government side of the House wants to see them succeed. I want to see them create jobs for the hon. Lady’s constituents and for mine, and I want to see them make a good profit and pay their contributions in tax. The energy companies that the hon. Lady mentioned, on which she wants to see a windfall tax, are already paying a huge rate of tax to the Exchequer, and many of our constituents depend on the share values of those companies for their pensions. We have to get the balance right. We need to ensure that those companies are efficient enough to deliver the lowest level of energy costs that they can manage, but the Exchequer has provided mechanisms to support those businesses and our constituents. I think the Government are striking the right balance, and that the proposals of the hon. Lady’s party would take us in the wrong direction.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

High Peak is one of the safest places to live in the country, but for many years Fairfield Road in Buxton has been blighted by antisocial behaviour and drug-related crimes. I organised multi-agency meetings with the police, the fire brigade, the council, social services and the relevant housing associations so that we could develop a joined-up approach to tackling that crime and its underlying causes. I am pleased to report that since our meetings a series of arrests have been made, and the police have told me that there has been a 40% reduction in crime, but there is still a great deal more to do. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on safer neighbourhood policing to enable us to make the case for more resources for local policing and make High Peak even safer?

[Mark Spencer]

I am delighted to hear about the extra funding and the reduction in crime in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government are committed to bringing down crime rates. We have already recruited 11,000 new police officers, which is over halfway to delivering on the pledge that we made at the last general election. We are giving officers more of the powers that they need to police our streets. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his constituency, and I am delighted to hear that he is making good progress in fighting crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I encourage colleagues to ask fairly short questions.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Leader of the House. Those of us who are regulars on a Thursday would prefer stimulation rather than soothing, and especially the stimulation of a Leader of the House who believes not in a presidential system run from No. 10 but a parliamentary democracy run here in this place.

On a lighter note, I am wearing my Valentine’s tie with hearts on it because it is Valentine’s day on Monday and we encourage everyone, in this House and outside, to send flowers to Nazanin on Monday. We cannot send them to her directly but they should be sent to the Iranian embassy. Let us build an enormous show of love for Nazanin and sympathy for her predicament on Monday. I hope that the new Leader of the House will join me in that.

[Mark Spencer]

I would be delighted to. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for the love he is demonstrating across the Chamber. I will assist him and the House in drawing attention to the fact that the Iranian state is still holding on to Nazanin. It is an outrage, and the sooner we can get her home, the better.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the services provided by East Midlands Railway—although in the case of EMR’s Cleethorpes to Barton service, it is the lack of service that is causing my constituents concerns. Will he arrange a debate about reliability and the responsibility of the rail operating companies to their passengers?

[Mark Spencer]

I praise my hon. Friend for his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail. I am familiar with East Midlands Railway. He is a huge champion for the improvement of services to Cleethorpes, and I wish him well in that pursuit. He can always apply for an Adjournment debate to continue to highlight the challenges his constituents face.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. I look forward to his attempts to lower the temperature in these sessions and am waiting for the moment when he tells me to “Calm down, dear”—I assure him that I will probably do the opposite.

I welcome yesterday’s announcement that cyber-flashing will become a specific offence in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I congratulate Bumble and the End Violence Against Women Coalition on that victory. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that we see a timeline, via a statement in the House, for how the Government are going to take the change forward?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Lady may have confused me with Michael Winner—I do not think I have ever used those words.

The hon. Lady raises the important issue of violence against women and girls, which the Government take extremely seriously. I am sure the Home Office will update her on the progress made and that she will hold the Home Office to account as we move forward.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role.

The Mayor of London is failing my constituents in Kensington: he is looking to sell the Notting Hill police station to the highest bidder, meaning there will not be a police presence in the north of my borough after December 2022. My local council is putting together a bid to retain the site as an asset of community value. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Mayor of London should sell the site to my local council so that it is retained in the community rather than turned into luxury flats that will be bought by foreigners and probably never lived in?

[Mark Spencer]

The Mayor of London is the capital’s police and crime commissioner and is ultimately responsible for decisions of that kind. I note that his record on policing, and particularly on the scourge of knife crime, does not match that of his predecessor. My hon. Friend is diligent in her frequent questioning of the inadequacies of the Mayor of London and is a great champion of her constituents. I hope he listens to her pleas.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The UK Statistics Authority has written to the Government because the Prime Minister used the wrong figures when he talked about crime being down by 14% when it is in fact up by 14%. The Government have similarly been written to about the use of unemployment statistics that neglect to include people who are self-employed, the number of whom has dropped by 700,000 to 800,000, so there are in fact fewer people in employment, contrary to what the Government say. Will the Leader of the House undertake to investigate all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who have misinformed the House, albeit inadvertently, on those statistics and ensure that they come back and put the record straight, as they are required to do?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Gentleman rescued himself at the end by putting in the word “inadvertently”, because I know he would not want to suggest that anybody would come to the House and deliberately mislead anyone. I can cheer him up by telling him that the work on crime that the Government are delivering is making great progress. We are working on drugs strategies, we are shutting down county lines, we are investing £200 million in the youth endowment fund, we are lifting the number of police officers throughout the United Kingdom and we are working very hard to bring down violent crime—and succeeding. It is time for him to be more positive about crime reduction, get behind the Government, and support our police officers by recognising their hard work.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent start in his new role. This weekend, CPRE Bedfordshire is arranging a series of walks in conjunction with local parishes across the Bedfordshire countryside to highlight the pressure that excessive development is placing on our natural environment. What progress are the Government making with our infrastructure-first initiatives and our planning targets? Could we have a statement from the Minister responsible for those topics?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on the issue of development on the green belt. A new Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is a great man and the former Deputy Chief Whip, was recently appointed. I encourage my hon. Friend to get in contact with him to ensure that he understands the priorities. Many safeguards have been put in place in terms of planning. I wish him well, as many hon. Members have the same concerns.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the new Leader of the House provide an urgent statement on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s performance? The Transport Committee has criticised it twice in recent months. My constituent, who is a taxi driver, is desperate because his livelihood depends on his licence being returned to him. Another constituent needs to travel abroad but it has had her passport for three months. Can he work some magic to resolve those issues?

[Mark Spencer]

I know that issue is recognised in the Department for Transport. The hon. Lady will understand that, coming out of a global pandemic, there have been challenges in several Government Departments, where people have been working from home, to process all that information as quickly as it should be delivered. She is right to highlight that and I am sure that she will have an opportunity at Transport questions to question the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The Government agree that an offshore transmission network is the best way to connect offshore wind to the national grid, but under current plans, an OTN will not be in place until after 2030, when we have had 40 GW from offshore wind by 2030 set out under the green industrial revolution. National Grid ESO estimates that that will cost consumers an extra £6 billion. Is there time for a debate on the need to accelerate the development and installation of the OTN so that it is ready for 2030 and the 40 GW connection, not after it?

[Mark Spencer]

I think there are Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions in the week we return from half-term, and I know that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to question our colleagues in BEIS then. The Government are managing the transition from a carbon-driven energy production system to new tech. I know that he is a keen advocate of that, and I am sure that he will hold us to account as we make that transition.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

FDR created the Executive Office of the President in response to the great depression and to drive through the new deal. The Office of the Prime Minister has been created in response to partygate and to get through a leadership crisis. Can we have a debate on the significant constitutional change—the power grab—that is being perpetrated by Downing Street?

[Mark Spencer]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. The Prime Minister wants to bring efficiency to Downing Street, which will benefit my constituents and his. We need a system in Government that delivers for the House of Commons so that hon. Members in the Chamber can hold the Government to account as well as bringing the changes that our constituents desperately need to see.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the new Leader of the House. Could he apply some of his famed Sudocrem to those of us on both sides of the House who would like to see the Vagrancy Act 1824 repealed by allowing us to vote for the amendment from Lord Best and Lord Young—the latter is a distinguished former Chief Whip—in due course?

Although this is not the most important issue about Russia on the table, will the Leader of the House encourage Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to help Gloucester City Council, which has been badly hacked, reportedly by those in Russia?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend’s question highlights the importance of the security services in dealing with hacks in which local authorities have been subject to ransom software. We will continue to do anything we can as a Government to support local authorities or Government agencies to avoid that. On the Vagrancy Act, I am aware of the amendment currently in the House of Lords, which the Government are looking at closely. As soon as we have made a decision on that, I am sure that the House will be updated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It should really be one question.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role. Given that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and, I think, the majority of the British public support the continuation of telemedicine—the Government also had a consultation on it that ended in February 2021—is it not time for an urgent statement from the Department of Health and Social Care about the future for telemedicine? Last week, The Daily Telegraph reported that Ministers had said that they would extend it, but that was not brought to the House of Commons first. It is however the right decision, because it is the healthcare that women in 2022 need and the Abortion Act 1967, which is more than 50 years old, is no longer fit for purpose.

[Mark Spencer]

I recognise the right hon. Lady’s work and how passionately she has campaigned in this area. It is a sensitive issue on which I fear to tread at this moment in time. We have Health and Social Care questions on 1 March, which will give her an opportunity to ask questions, but I expect that any changes that she referenced will be debated in the House and that she will have an opportunity to question Ministers on them.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; he is doing an excellent job.

One hundred and seventy-five years ago, Barrow-in-Furness comprised little more than a few sheep farms, but the discovery of iron ore opened up Barrow to the world and Henry Schneider’s railway showed its potential. It is because of the iron and steel of the railways that we now deliver the national deterrent. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better place for the home of Great British Railways than Barrow-in-Furness? Will he give time for a debate so that colleagues can discuss the issue further?

[Mark Spencer]

As I said earlier, the Great British Railways transition team is running a competition, and I wish my hon. Friend every success as I do my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who also hopes to bid. I remind the House that the Government have a plan to deliver a wide range of change on our railways. I congratulate him on being a huge campaigner and great advocate for Barrow—he is a true champion for the town—and wish him well.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Brexit dividend was supposed to reduce paperwork and red tape, so how come next week 50 questionnaires will be sent to Downing Street?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we have a new Minister in place who will deliver the Brexit dividend. There are huge opportunities coming forward for the United Kingdom. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get behind Brexit and to celebrate all that is Brexit. In the words of the movie “Frozen”—I do not know whether he has seen it—he should “let it go”. We have got to move forward and celebrate Brexit.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Leader of the House to his place. As I am sure the whole House knows, this is a momentous year for rugby league. We are starting the season today with rugby league being shown on two TV stations, and then the rugby league world cup will be hosted by England later this year. Does the Leader of the House agree that this momentous year should be celebrated in this House, starting with a debate in Government time on the power of sport and the huge contribution that rugby league in particular makes to our communities and to society as a whole?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I warmly welcome her question. It is important in answering that I mention Warrington Wolves, or Mr Speaker will be upset. I know that he is a huge fan of rugby league, and we should celebrate all that those small clubs do, with thousands and thousands of volunteers and parents turning out at weekends, supporting their kids playing football, rugby league and rugby union and many other sports. It is good for the mental health of their kids and their fitness, and it is good for families to have something to do at weekends that draws them together and keeps them as a unit.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role and thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for his assistance in pursuing the Business Secretary after I raised in November the issue of best available techniques, which set the conditions for environmental permits for key industries. Unfortunately, we are no further forward. The Government response to the April 2021 consultation has not yet been published, and we are only weeks away from the arrangements taking effect. There also seems to be uncertainty as to which Department is responsible. Can we therefore have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and will the Leader of the House allow time for Members to debate this issue?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for recognising the efforts of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. First, let us try to identify the Department that is responsible. I will try to assist him in doing that, and then we can together pursue that Department to get the answers that he desires.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Luton North finds strength in its diversity; it really is one town of many voices. My constituents are concerned by the rising incidence of Islamophobia, backed up by worrying new findings from the University of Birmingham that Britons are three times more likely to discriminate against Muslims than any other faith group. Their fears are all compounded by reports of Islamophobia at the heart of this Government. The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), did not get a straight answer, so I will try again. Will people’s legitimate concerns be addressed in Government time, yes or no?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight all forms of hate crime and racial discrimination, and I am committed to assisting her in any way I can to try to diminish, reduce or eradicate racial hatred and racial crime. It is an appalling crime and it should be condemned at all levels. If I can assist her in any way in doing that, I would be delighted to do so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The now Leader of the House is more than familiar with the details of the Owen Paterson scandal that did so much damage to our politics, given his role in those events. The rot needs to be cut out. Given that, will the Leader of the House give time to debate my Bill to ban second jobs for MPs—a Bill that the Government are repeatedly blocking from progressing?

[Mark Spencer]

I should declare an interest, as I have a second job. As well as being the Member of Parliament for Sherwood, I am also the Leader of the House. I do not know whether he wants to ban me from having my second role, but that would be challenging. The House of Commons benefits from a wide range of experience, backgrounds and former careers and, to a certain extent, colleagues should be encouraged to be out there in the real world experiencing other forms of employment. I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. If I am being honest with him, it would be pretty difficult for me as a farmer to extract myself from that. I live in the middle of that farm. I do not know how I would extract myself from that business if I was no longer allowed to have a second job. I am not prepared to divorce my wife or to move house. I do not know quite how I would deliver on the route he wants to go.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The bus industry is hearing that the Government are contemplating the removal of current covid subsidies for bus companies from April or shortly afterwards. That would be extremely detrimental to bus services in Warrington, potentially requiring full route withdrawals and a stiff fares rise. Both would be extremely unpopular and could leave parts of our town cut off from public transport. Will the Leader of the House therefore please arrange for a statement in Government time on bus funding, so that this issue can be resolved and continued funding secured as we build back public transport after the pandemic?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the Department for Transport just announced £29 million extra to support buses, but the hon. Lady must recognise that as we move out of covid we need to move back to original funding levels in those areas. The good news is that we are coming out of covid. We will be the first country to get rid of all covid measures. That is thanks to the Prime Minister who, at the very early stages, pushed the vaccine programme and delivered the booster programme. I warmly welcome our move away from covid and back to a normal way of working.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. Will he make time, on the Floor of the House, for a debate on Islamophobia? I have spoken previously on the Floor of the House about my experiences of Islamophobia and racism. Does he agree that an individual’s religion, or indeed no religion, should never be a barrier to them in the workplace?

[Mark Spencer]

I wholly agree with the hon. Lady that someone’s religion, sexuality, sex or age should not be a barrier to their career. She is one of a number of Members this morning who has asked for a debate of that nature. It is clearly very popular. I encourage her to link up with the other colleagues who have asked for that debate and to petition the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who Chairs the Committee, will listen to those pleas.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Next week is Love Unions Week. May I put on record the incredible work that our trade unions do every day, supporting workers through the very challenging twists and turns of the workplace, but also over the last two years supporting workers through the pandemic, and supporting the growth of the economy and advancing workers’ rights? May we have a debate in Government time to talk about the value of trade unions, and encourage people to join their trade union and make a difference to the world of work?

[Mark Spencer]

I should declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. Unions are a force for good in many circumstances. A debate on the success of unions is something the hon. Lady clearly believes in passionately. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate, so she can put on the record her desire to celebrate all that is good about UK unions.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Leader of the House on being able to hold down three jobs. Several of my constituents do not have a job. They lost their job or had a job offer withdrawn because it took the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency six months or more to renew their driving licence. I firmly support the earlier request by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for a debate in Government time to look into the performance of the DVLA, in particular the gross discrimination against people who have to declare a medical condition. That is what is causing the delays. That is what forces people to use an outdated manual system, instead of the online system. Will the Leader of the House advise his colleagues in other Departments that that discrimination is not only indefensible; it is almost certainly unlawful and the Government could be facing a massive compensation bill if they do not get their act together pronto?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the cases he talks about. There will be an opportunity for him to question Transport Ministers in the near future. I encourage him to use the methods available to him to pursue this issue in the House with an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Tomorrow is UN International Day of Woman and Girls in Science, which pushes for full and equal access and participation for women and girls in science, given the significant gender gap that persists, particularly in accessing participation in higher education. Could we have a debate in Government time on the important role that BTECs and other applied general qualifications, such as biomedical science, play in allowing women and girls to access higher education, including on the impact that defunding BTECs will have on that participation?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important to get young girls into science, technology, maths and engineering topics. The Government have made great progress in that direction, and the Secretary of State for Education and his Department would celebrate and love the opportunity to set out their record. If the hon. Member were to apply for an Adjournment debate, she would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to tell her about the great work that the Government are doing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On behalf of myself and my party, I welcome the Leader of the House to his new job, fresh from his job as Chief Whip. I also wish the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), well in his new role.

Two weeks ago, the House of Lords highlighted that the NHS sourced materials made by the forced labour of Christians, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners in Xinjiang, China. Will the Leader of the House provide a statement on the steps that Her Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that goods procured for the NHS are free from the forced labour of prisoners of conscience in that region?

[Mark Spencer]

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are on 8 March. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a long-term campaigner for the rights of the oppressed in foreign countries and the rights of Christians around the world. It is important that he highlights those challenges. The matter is worthy of debate, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that all the issues can be thrashed out.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his place.

On Sunday morning, I will be enjoying locals at Hamilton Accies football club for The Big Step challenge, which is a campaign to end all gambling advertising and sponsorship in football. The campaign is part of Gambling with Lives—a charity set up by families bereaved by gambling-related suicide. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the highly anticipated White Paper on the Gambling Act 2005, and on how those with lived experience can inform the legislative outcomes?

[Mark Spencer]

The issue is worthy of debate. Many people participate in gambling, and it does them no harm—it is something that they enjoy—but clearly there are people who become addicted. Putting in place safeguards to protect those people and ensure that they are safe from predatory activity is worthy of debate. I wish the hon. Member well in her campaign.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his new role. I know that it was on the tip of his tongue to wish Doncaster good luck in its bid to be the home of Great British Railways; I am sure that it was just the time constraint that prevented him from doing so. Welcome, Leader of the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope this is helpful, as it follows on from the earlier questions about the Standards Committee’s current code of conduct review. The consultation ends today, and I know that the Government are close to sending in their own submission. Neither I, nor the Committee, would want any Member of the House to be treated any differently from the public in their submission. Members of the public can make a submission to the consultation online and simply click the box that says, “I would like to remain anonymous”, and that facility is also available to Members.

Alternatively, Members can email me or the Clerk of the Committee. It is helpful for us to know that a submission has come from a Member, but if they wanted to indicate that they would like to remain anonymous, we would undertake to maintain that anonymity when we publish all the responses to the consultation. We really do want to hear everybody’s views as openly as possible. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you can answer that point of order, which was not really a point of order at all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I was just about to say that I felt that it was more a public service broadcast than a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously passed on the information very effectively.

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.

An island like our own, Taiwan is a democracy where free markets and the rule of law are valued and upheld. Reverence of liberty and respect for fair governance are treasured by the Taiwanese, just as they are in countries across the free world. Yet Taiwan is also unique. It has a beautiful culture born out of the many peoples and countries that have touched the island. Within this diversity, the Taiwanese show elements of a common culture with their Chinese cousins. They speak Mandarin, and they gather every year to celebrate the same traditions as those on the Chinese mainland. For example, just this month, millions of Taiwanese celebrated the beginning of the lunar new year, and I am sure everyone will join me in wishing them well in the year of the tiger.

However, Taiwan has always been distinct. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, Taiwan was ruled separately from the emergent Ching dynasty in Beijing. The Kangxi Emperor, who ruled China for longer than any other, said of the island:

“We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it.”

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that, following our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Government of China are watching very closely our resolve in the face of threats to Ukraine, as they assess what they might do with regard to their ambitions in the South China sea?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, and he is absolutely right that autocratic Governments across the world are now questioning our resolve and questioning our ability to go in and defend our neighbours, particularly to uphold the values of democracy. I will elucidate that point more if he gives me a little time.

While the pomposity of that comment and attitude about Taiwan does not reflect the immense value of this nation, it does highlight the novelty of the Chinese claims to the island. China did not always claim the right to govern Taiwan, and that is important in understanding the current tensions as we look at recent developments.

Taiwan has not always been the democracy we see today. The years after the second world war saw the emergence of a one-party nationalist state, with widespread political repression. At the beginning of the 1980s, however, Taiwan pursued democratic reform. Building on the rapid economic growth post war, the island became a multi-party, rules-based democracy. This transformation was known as the Taiwan miracle. The Economist global democracy index now shows just how far Taiwan come. I doubt many Members would know that Taiwan is ranked as the 11th most democratic country on earth and the No. 1 most democratic country in Asia, according to The Economist, which is a quite outstanding achievement.

Taiwan is therefore the living, breathing truth that societies rooted in Chinese culture are capable of developing into free market, democratic and rules-respecting members of the international community. It is this truth that explains why the Chinese Communist party fears Taiwan so greatly, because as long as Taiwan exists, the world will know that Government need not be defined by control, repression and even genocide, as we have seen under the Chinese Communist party. When Xi Jinping claims that Taiwan has always been part of China, he is using a false narrative to pursue his political agenda.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree with me that the problem we have at the moment is that there seems to be an absence of strategy from the Government towards China and its relationship with Taiwan? Does she feel that we do need something urgently to fill that gap or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, China will be looking very closely at our reactions and perhaps its own actions will be influenced by that lack of strategy?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I very much agree that we need a cross-Government strategy on China. However, I think she will probably hear from the Minister later some relief on that subject, because I believe that a cross-Government strategy is currently being developed. It looks as though the officials in the Box are relieved that I am saying so, but we will wait to hear about that later.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some people have often said that China has adopted a patient attitude to Taiwan and thinks that eventually it will somehow fall into China’s lap. Is it not important that we have a cross-party, cross-House and whole-nation approach to this in the UK, and do we not have just as deep a well of patience as China?

[Alicia Kearns]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. China believes it is in the ascendancy and needs simply to wait it out until the UK and the US lose their ability to maintain an international rules-based order, and then it can occupy Taiwan. He puts it very well when he says that we too are watching and we too will wait, and we will stand by our allies. He is absolutely right that we need a cross-party approach, and I believe that under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) we see exactly that on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The current tensions in Taiwan must be seen for what they are: the direct result of the emergence of democracy and the Chinese Communist party’s own insecurity about a modern, successful and democratic Chinese society. When people ask why we should care about an island on the other side of the globe, the answer is simple. Taiwan represents the best of democracy, and the United Kingdom must always take the side of democracy and our friends who are trying to uphold its values.

Over the past few years, we in this House have watched with dismay as the Chinese Communist party has stripped away the freedoms and liberties of our friends in Hong Kong. The implementation of the national security law has transformed a vibrant and open society into a repressive, Orwellian nightmare, where a teenager faces prison for voicing slightly critical views on social media. While we all mourn the loss of those freedoms, I urge hon. Members not to fall into a state of resignation; our friends in Taiwan need more than that.

Therefore, I will discuss three areas that bind the interests of the United Kingdom to Taiwan: further economic co-operation, international recognition, and security and regional stability. The UK and Taiwan already enjoy a fruitful trading relationship: £7.2 billion of goods and services were exchanged in 2020 alone. Taiwan, as we all know, is the leading producer of semiconductor chips, the micro-engines of our modern world. From mobile phones to the fighter planes that make up the Royal Air Force, the importance of those chips cannot be overstated, but there has been a shortage in recent years, leading both the European Union and USA to implement strategies to maintain their access. We must do the same.

Sensing an opportunity, the Chinese Communist party is already moving to try to dominate this market, although I suspect it will not be able to because of the high-quality workmanship needed to create the chips. Only last year, China purchased the UK’s largest producer of semiconductor chips, Newport Wafer Fab. I opposed the takeover, as did the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I urge the Government to continue to do more to protect industries of special national interest. We cannot be selling them off. We must seek to produce, to protect our own production capabilities and to foster trading relationships with democracies that will protect supply chains.

A trade deal with Taiwan would not only ensure access to semiconductor chips, but help the UK to achieve our net zero targets without compromising on our morals. In my Rutland and Melton constituency there is a 2,175-acre solar plant proposed on good agricultural land, which is being developed by a de facto Chinese company with supply chains reaching into Xinjiang, the site of the Chinese Communist party’s genocide. I will not see Rutland’s soil tainted by mass human rights atrocities. I urge the Government to pursue a bilateral trade deal, because we know Taiwan produces quality solar panels free of Uyghur blood labour.

Taiwan is a country committed to net zero by 2050, producing high-quality green technology, and it shares our democratic morals. What better partner for a trade deal? Let us strike one and begin to develop the alternative supply chains we need to free Taiwan and to a lesser extent ourselves from economic reliance on the Chinese mainland. Let us focus on high-quality technologies and renewables. There is opportunity for us and for them.

The UK is also in the process of joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We have recognised the shift in global wealth and power towards the Indo-Pacific, and global Britain is rightly stepping up to that. As we pivot towards Asia, however, we must have someone to lean on. Taiwan could play an important role there.

We are all aware of the limitations placed on Taiwan globally: despite having the 21st largest economy and a population of 24 million, it is still barred from meaningful participation in much of the international order. Although tens of millions of passengers pass through its airports, Taiwan has not been represented at the International Civil Aviation Organization since 2014. That is illogical, and the UK must support its readmittance to that body.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for Taiwan’s place in the international community and its role in international bodies. Does she agree that this is not just about Taiwan, but about us as well? What we have seen from the absence of Taiwan’s voice on the World Health Organisation is a worse performance against covid, the Wuhan virus that emerged under Chinese tutelage. Does she agree that we are seeing a damaged response and a worsened ability of the British people to protect themselves because China has decided, for its own selfish reasons, to bully and silence Taiwan?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is no question but that the Taiwanese response to covid was transparent. It was one of friendship, education and reaching out, yet the international community somehow closed their doors to it. Not only is Taiwan barred from the World Health Organisation and World Health Assembly, but it was expelled from its observer position. That is not acceptable for a country that had impressive contact tracing and border controls, and a rejection of the Orwellian restrictions that other countries put in place.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As she rightly pointed out, Taiwan is a beacon not only of liberal democracy but of scientific co-operation, and it has shown huge expertise in the way it dealt with the covid-19 pandemic. She has rightly called for Taiwan to be readmitted with observer status to the WHO. What specific and tangible steps does she think the British Government should be taking to lobby the international community to make that happen? When does she think we should start seeing more tangible action from the British Government in that context?

[Alicia Kearns]

We know there are partners across the world who wish to support us in upholding the rights and opportunities of our democratic partners. We should be forming constellations of alliances in every multilateral organisation and zone, where we lobby and work together, whether that is ensuring that we get the right president of Interpol, or ensuring that we have friends such as the Taiwanese at the table or with observer status. Those are things that the UK can lead on, because no nation in the world is better at convening other nations than the UK. If we put our mind to it, we can achieve it.

We must be careful to avoid an unnecessary clash with China in which Taiwan is caught in the middle and becomes collateral damage. The current settlement has maintained peace for 40 years, and we should never underestimate the importance and value of peace. We must therefore be careful in the framing of our relationship and duties to Taiwan. The emergence of full-blown US-China or UK-China strategic rivalry risks increasing Taiwan’s place in political rhetoric between our nations, or it becoming a lightning rod for international agitation and a signal, or a de facto signal, of how strongly a country is or is not standing up to the Chinese Communist party. While that might be easy, or even attractive, to fall into, our Taiwanese friends deserve more meaningful engagement from all of us in this place; it should not be because Taiwan is a useful pawn in our wider competition or debates. I urge the Minister to ensure that we pursue meaningful engagement with Taiwan and that we act tactfully. When I call for Taiwan to have greater international recognition, it is on account of its democracy, its expertise and its status as a free-market friend; not as a tool in a wider struggle.

There are things we can learn from Taiwan, and we must, as we establish this new constellation of alliances around the world. We must also be alert to the risk of framing Taiwan as the smaller cousin of a great beast. It deserves better than that. The Taiwanese are not an embattled people withstanding increasing pressure from the authoritarian communist mainland, which sits waiting to launch an invasion. Taiwan is a strong, thriving economy and society, and a friend, and we must support it in the measured and diplomatic manner that it deserves.

Our first step would be a round of ministerial visits, and I hope the Minister can arrange reciprocal visits, particularly with a Minister at Cabinet level who could represent all of Government, given that we recognise the restrictions on the engagement of particular Departments. I also call for formal recognition to be given to the Taipei representative office, and for meaningful political dialogue. Indeed, His Excellency—I call him that on purpose—the ambassador of Taiwan is observing this debate today; he joins us in the Chamber, and I am sure we all wish to extend our welcome to him. What a gesture it would be if we were to consider granting his office, which serves Taiwan with great distinction, legal diplomatic status.

I have already spoken about the strength of Taiwan’s democracy, the unique culture of its people, and the immense contribution it can and wants to make internationally. But all that is at risk. The 40 years of peace preserved under the principle that Taiwan is a part of China, which we recognise but do not necessarily believe in fully, is being tested. Xi Jinping has committed himself to the political reunification, or “the great rejuvenation” as he calls it, of Taiwan and China, including through the use of force. Already in 2022, in just 27 days, Taiwan has suffered over 148 threatening flights by Chinese aircraft into the air defence identification zone, threatening the Taiwanese air force through a concerted campaign to erode its confidence, as well as grievous aggravations in the Taiwan strait.

The UK is committed to the international rules-based order and I welcome that the Royal Navy’s flagship, the Queen Elizabeth, went to the Taiwan strait last year. I praise the Government for getting Taiwan on the agenda of the recent G7 meeting under our presidency. This is the sort of forward-thinking engagement that we need, but we must do more.

We cannot sit back and wait for any tragedies, such as those in Hong Kong, to occur again. We must act, and we must act now. I ask the Minister to work with our allies around the world, to engage with those nations that respect freedom and have the same concerns that we do, to set in place deterrents and diplomacy to protect our Taiwanese friends, and to ensure we are monitoring, perhaps in the conflict zone that was recently established, the increasing grey-zone hostilities against Taiwan, so that we can measure the incremental and subtle escalations that are taking place.

We also need to look at resilience building with our Taiwanese friends, whether helping them counter disinformation campaigns, developing supply chain resilience or ensuring they can retain access to markets worldwide, which will surely be one the first places that China will seek to hurt them. We have all been impressed by the swift actions of this Government in Ukraine, but now we must show that we are truly a global Britain and will act worldwide.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is long overdue. On that point, the Foreign Secretary has been in Russia this week, showing steely determination to stand up to Russia about the way it is behaving with Ukraine. Do we need the same kind of steely determination shown towards Beijing over its attitude towards Taiwan and Hong Kong, and its general behaviour in that part of the world?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate and friend of the Taiwanese people. The issue is that for too long autocratic countries around the world have seen no cost when they escalate, escalate and escalate. Whether is it Dodik in Bosnia, Putin in Ukraine and around our near neighbourhood, or China in Hong Kong, and whether domestically or in the countries around them, I fear greatly that we fail to bring costs to bear that matter, at our own peril.

Let us look at the situation in Ukraine. Putin has achieved much in the past few weeks. We have given him the world status that he has been craving, with America, France and England all going to Moscow to be called equal to him on the world stage. We have given tacit agreement to him that those borders that he has already occupied are now his to keep. “Just don’t go any further,” we say. That is not enough. That is not a cost. Putin has won greatly in the past few weeks.

While we all recognise the threats facing democracy today, how we in this place respond matters, because it will define the future of the United Kingdom. Around the world, Parliaments are watching us and listening to us. How we respond now will define the rest of this century, and our children’s children’s future. We are proud of our country for its role in protecting democracy in the past, and we must channel that pride into action. I urge all Members to raise their voices in support of Taiwan.

Let us strike a trade deal that benefits our economy and supports our ally; support their democratic values and their strength in being the No.1 democracy in Asia; and give Taiwan’s representatives in the UK the legal status they need. I call for Taiwan to be given a voice internationally, and to be readmitted to both the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Most importantly, let us ensure that everyone knows that we in this place stand clearly behind the US, as the main guarantor of Taiwan’s security, and our allies in the preservation of peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. We know that Taiwan has much to offer to the world. As our friend, it is our duty to ensure that its contribution is heard, accepted and embraced.

12:54

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this important debate. I must declare an interest, having been a guest of Taipei in the past. I welcome the ambassador and his team to the House this afternoon.

This month, we have been reminded more than ever of the importance of allies around the world, and of friendship with nations that are at risk from bullying neighbours. Taiwan is a liberal democracy. It has free and fair elections and a free press. Indeed, it outperforms the UK in international democracy rankings. Those are principles and a record worth defending. Just as we all look on cautiously at what is happening in Ukraine, the future of Taiwan, too, could change the world. It is in no one’s interest to see conflict, but, as we saw in Syria with President Obama’s red lines, a commitment to act that is not backed by action is a free pass for enemies of peace. President Biden and other Pacific allies understand the importance of Taiwan. The new-found focus on the Pacific will bear fruit. Stability, democracy and freedom are valuable and right. They are our own aims and values, and they should be recognised as such.

That is surely part of the reason why relations between Taiwan and the UK continue to improve. Nine out of 10 UK companies feel positive or very positive about their business outlook in Taiwan—an all-time high. Trade is booming, investment grows and British whisky is used to toast that success. Taiwan is a critical partner for the UK. As a world leader in high-tech manufacturing, Taiwan accounts for one fifth of global chip manufacturing and, it is estimated, half of all cutting-edge capacity. Any risk to that is a serious threat to the UK, and it would put the entire global supply chain at risk. The impact does not bear thinking about.

Taiwan is currently excluded from regional co-operation and trade bodies. While we may have chosen to exclude ourselves from our neighbours, Taiwan wants to make no such mistake. I hope the UK will continue to support Taiwan’s continued attempts at international participation. I urge partners around the world, including the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to co-operate with Taiwan. Taiwan has much to offer us in knowledge and expertise, and we should not allow it to be stifled.

The United States remains unparalleled in its importance, guaranteeing Taiwanese independence, and we must stand shoulder to shoulder against intimidation. I look forward to continued ministerial engagement with Taiwan, and to us being able to learn as much as possible from Taiwan’s sizeable healthcare experience. I urge the Government to afford the Taipei representative office in the UK some form of legal status and to ease existing restrictions on high-level Taiwanese officials travelling to the UK.

12:59

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am very lucky to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—I do call him my hon. Friend—as they both covered so many of the issues that I would have covered. I am freed to speak on a slightly wider area, because this is not just about the immediate proximity of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Taiwan; it is about the relationship that we have sadly had with Beijing in recent years.

A few years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the previous Parliament as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of the first things I wanted to do was to look at our relationship with China, to see how we could develop it, what we could improve, what we could make better and perhaps what we could put aside. I reached out to the then Chinese ambassador, was invited to meet China’s Potemkin Parliament and the Committee was invited to Beijing.

We did what we usually do and put in our visa requests, having already been told that, as guests of the National People’s Congress, they would go through. One of our members, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—I am glad to see him here today—was with us and China stopped the visa process. I was told that I had to demand that he apologise for being a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Taiwan. I know many people have ideas that Committee Chairs are getting too powerful, but even I did not think I had the power to silence him. Indeed, many Prime Ministers and many greater people than me have found that no one has the power to silence him.

I am delighted to say that the politburo and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, from which the man who claims to be President derives his real power, discovered that they do not have the power to silence my hon. Friend, either. He did not apologise and visas were issued. For me, it was a very important first lesson that we have to stand up for what really matters. We have to stand up for ourselves, for our democracy and for our freedom, and we have to be absolutely clear why we are doing it. Of course we wanted to visit Beijing, and of course the Chinese Government have the right to issue or not to issue visas to the Foreign Affairs Committee—that is absolutely fair, as they do not have to issue visas to us—but they do not have the right to decide who sits on the Committee, as that is the privilege of this House and of our people.

That was my first lesson on the kind of relationship we have with Beijing at the moment. It hugely reversed what I hoped would be a constructive direction, and I am very sorry that it did so. Many of us who have been to China on a few occasions think incredibly highly of the Chinese people and of the culture and civilisation that has developed in different communities—some Han, some Mongol, some Tibetan, some Uyghur. We know that the Hui people have harboured Islam in their hearts, and we know there are Christian communities that go back 1,600, 1,700 and maybe even 1,800 years in different parts of China. We know this is a culture that is expressed in many different ways, and it is not always in a single unitary state. This is an area that has given the world such enormous wealth, richness, diversity and innovation.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of these peoples do not want to be Chinese? They want to be Tibetan, for instance. They are forced to remain within China’s boundaries against their will, and China refuses them the opportunity for self-determination, which is shameful.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman will know very well that this country recognises that peoples in our community have the right to self-determination. In China, sadly, that has been taken away from people. I agree entirely that there are many peoples who the Chinese state calls Chinese, but who call themselves something else. We have always recognised that people choose their status, not Governments.

Let me come back to Taiwan and why the debate is so important. Many of us are focusing, understandably, on what is going on in Moscow. We are focusing on the journey that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took today to see her opposite number, Mr Lavrov. We are focused on the fact that we are seeing physical threats to borders in Europe for the first time since 2014—and that was the first time that had happened since 1945. We are seeing genuine aggression against free and sovereign people in a way that we have not in 60 or 70 years, except for in the case of the annexation of Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, Donetsk and Luhansk.

We are also seeing dictatorships trying to undermine democracies. We are seeing it because they have shown it to us. The relationship between Mr Putin and Mr Xi is extremely concerning. They have advertised it to us; they met in order to demonstrate their commitment to each other, and to undermining democracy and freedom around the world. That is why we are talking about Taiwan today. We are seeing a real moment in global politics—a point when we are more vulnerable than we have been for a long time. We see, sadly, a diversion of attention in Washington, confusion in Brussels, and a proliferation of different ideas, thoughts and challenges in Paris, Berlin and Rome.

We are seeing steel in Vilnius and Warsaw, and among many partners and friends. But sadly we are not seeing it as widely as we need to. That is exposing us to a double-edged risk—perhaps not just the risk that Russia may invade Ukraine. It may; 125,000 troops on the border suggests that it is possible. But Russia may also use this opportunity to demonstrate that there is confusion and division in the west, and use that to convince friends and allies that the deals that it has made in the last 20 or 30 years are no longer valid, and that they should bow down to Beijing and Moscow instead. That would be much more damaging to our long-term future, our peoples’ liberties, and our economic prosperity than many other decisions that could be taken. What is worse, the decision to do that in Ukraine would open up an opportunity to think about doing the same in Taiwan.

It is certainly true that any military invasion of Taiwan would be extremely difficult. The Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army Navy, as it is somewhat bizarrely called—has been developing an amphibious capability that it thinks puts it in with a chance of a successful landing on Taiwan’s shores. I know—we all know—that is what it is doing; it is not a secret.

[Alicia Kearns]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend when he is making such a good point, but does he agree that, very concerningly, some of the research, intelligence and information that underpin some of those new technological advances that China is making are coming from British universities, British researchers and British companies, where espionage is at large? It is funding them quite openly, yet there seems to be no accountability in academia for the selling of what should be state-protected secrets to somebody who is clearly at odds with our own interests.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I will come back to that point, because she will not be surprised to hear that I wish to build on it.

Those of us who have some experience of fighting in mountains know that it is a lot harder for the attacker than the defender. Those of us who have sadly spent too much time reading stories of Operation Overlord will know that even the short straits that separate us from northern France provided an extremely difficult obstacle for our forebears to get over. So 100 miles of really difficult water to cross on the straits of Taiwan really does present an obstacle. Indeed, the sea state there is often so difficult that only for very short windows is it possible to truly cross. The landing positions that the Chinese forces would need to assault are narrow and therefore likely to afford Taiwanese forces the ability to defend.

I do not think that we should really be looking at the military threat in the classical sense. Instead, we are looking at the military threat in the sense of what we see from Russia in Ukraine and, sadly, from China in other parts of the world. We are seeing an erosion—an erosion of the will to fight, an erosion of the nation state to hold together, and an erosion of the integrity of a society to resist pressure—and that is coming in many, many different ways.

The first, sadly, is in what has become known as fake news: the disinformation campaigns that we are seeing around the world, the extraordinary assaults on our intelligence, our intellect and our ability to talk to one another as equals by spreading the hatred and lies that we see, sadly, too frequently here in the UK, in the United States and in many other countries. We are seeing that being absolutely industrialised in countries such as Ukraine and Taiwan. They are not the sole aim of these targets, but merely the roadblock on the way to the rest, because this is intended to change the way in which the global economy works and the way in which our people—the British people—are able to live their lives and enjoy their futures. It is intended to erode our liberties so that a few rich men in Beijing and Moscow can enjoy their stolen goods and make sure that they sleep at night.

That is not acceptable. We were not elected to this place and charged with being here to sacrifice the freedoms of the British people to a couple of despots in Beijing or Moscow. Standing up with our allies and friends around the world is exactly what we should be doing, but again, this is not just about them, because the techniques that we are seeing in Taiwan and Ukraine are spreading here.

Today, like every day, businesses and individuals in Taipei and across the island will be the subject of quite literally millions of cyber-attacks. They are under such intense assault that it is very difficult to understand how many routine operations can continue, and yet they do. We are seeing the same type of assaults here in the UK—not the same volume, but the same type—and we therefore have a lot to learn from Taiwan in how it resists. The same is true in Ukraine, where we are seeing Russia learning a whole new way of doing warfare by interrupting everything from the electricity grid to the communications networks in order to undermine the capability of the state and society to hold together.

But we are also seeing that here in the UK and that brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton so rightly made. We are seeing an erosion of our own freedoms here in the UK, and not just through the dirty money that the Foreign Affairs Committee has been so clear in calling out since 2018. Indeed, I see on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time—promotion for some!

We have been calling this out for a long time because it is fundamentally undermining the prosperity and happiness of the British people. We are seeing properties being over-inflated in value. We are seeing assets being used to undermine us, not to support us. We are seeing assets of community value—football teams and businesses—being used effectively as a piggybank from which cash can be removed on future occasions for pay for operations on behalf of a state that thinks nothing of attempting to murder the Prime Minister of Montenegro, actually murdering a citizen in the United Kingdom using a nuclear substance, using chemical weapons on the streets of Salisbury, blowing up an arms dump in Prague, and threatening literally thousands of people with cold and famine by trafficking them and forcing them into the forests around Belarus to use as weapons against the people of Poland and Lithuania. This is not a co-operative state; it is a hostile state and these are its actions. Here, we need to do more about it. We need to stop the dirty money, which we have called for, but we need to go further, because we are also—this is the tragedy—seeing the erosion of the liberty of some British people. The freedoms that we value are the freedoms that we need to stand for.

Yesterday, sadly, for the 100th or 200th time—I cannot remember how many—I spoke to some students who told me that their debates in their universities were silenced. They said that people were not willing to speak out or to stand up for what they knew was true because they would face the pressure of the Ministry of State Security, China’s enforcement arm, in silencing them in debate here in the UK. I spoke to them about the nature of this interference and they said that sadly it often comes from a fellow student or from a teacher or lecturer who is connected in some way to the state. We are seeing the erosion of the liberty of British citizens and of those who have come here seeking that liberty, whichever country they come from, because we are sadly not robust enough in standing up for it.

We need to close down the Confucius Institutes. They are agencies of a hostile state through the United Front Work Department—an organisation that we in this House have grown used to in recent days because of the works of Christine Lee, who we were all warned about. We have got used to the actions that it has been taking in seeking influence, in the most extraordinary propaganda operation that the world has ever seen, and we have got used to the pernicious effect on our own community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke about the theft of intellectual property—some of it, sadly, intellectual property that should remain secret. She is absolutely right. Defending state secrets is, after all, an essential role of government. But defending the liberty of British people to study and learn ideas of any kind, of any form, in a free environment at a university or a school, is surely even more fundamental than that. We must maintain absolute freedom of our people to express their views, whether on Tibet, as my hon. Friend did, on the status of Hong Kong, or, as officials in Beijing did only the other day, on the status of the Falkland Islands. They can express their views however they wish. Silencing debate undermines us and erodes freedom. It also erodes our path to the future.

Let me tell the House why I am still optimistic, despite that catalogue of crimes that I think have been committed against us. When I look forward, I see beacons like Taiwan as a demonstration that, actually, free people choose freedom. I see an example showing that Chinese society and culture, in different forms, are intrinsically at home with liberty. I see the writings in the universal declaration of human rights—written by an ambassador from China, P.C. Chang—and I see the rights that are literally encoded in the fundamental documents of the international community. I therefore see the hope that the attempts of the Chinese state—the Communist party—to silence these people will eventually fail, because they will.

What we are seeing coming out of Taiwan is another example of why those attempts will fail. Many people will know that TSMC, the Taiwanese semiconductor chip manufacturer, constitutes an extraordinary demonstration of innovation and capability on the island. It is a fantastic example of the meeting of science and craft, in that it brings together the skills of innovation and the skills of creation. I think it fair to say that it is now one of the keystones of the global economy. Delays caused to its output by various water issues and other problems had a direct effect on the manufacturing of cars and kettles, even here in the UK. It is essential to our global economy, and it is telling that its extraordinary success is based on the free ideas and the creativity that are needed—or, rather, can only be achieved—in a free society. This is a very good reminder that liberty does not just feed the soul; it feeds the pocket, and it feeds prosperity for everyone.

We see people around the world making choices. We see the migrant routes out of various parts of the world, and we see where those migrants go. There are not that many who think that China or Russia is a good idea, but there are many who choose freedom in countries such ours. When I see the threats that are ranged before us, I feel that what we are seeing coming out of Beijing today, and what we are seeing coming out of Moscow today, is much more in keeping with Shakespeare’s King Lear than with Henry V.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am reluctant to intervene on a substantial speech in a field about which my hon. Friend is very knowledgeable. May I suggest, however, that the principal challenge for any Government when it comes to foreign affairs is fundamentally to deal with the world as it is, while also working for the world that we would wish for, and without inadvertently making it worse in so doing?

If my hon. Friend agrees with me on that point, does he also agree that the status quo in the constitutional position of the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, has actually enabled it to flourish in its evolution as a peaceful and successful democracy, within which its relationship with us has strengthened considerably over recent time? Does he agree that in all of this, our shared values help to shape that relationship—and the fact that we are at the scoping stage of a Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme in Taiwan is one example of this—but that we should do nothing that might inadvertently trigger a reaction by China that would be good neither for the Chinese nor for us, and considering changing the name of their representation in the UK would be precisely such a measure?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I entirely respect my hon. Friend’s position. As he knows, we have had many discussions on a similar basis and on a similar note outside this place. He is right that we have to deal with the world as it is and gently encourage it to be the world that it should be—it is safe to say that neither of us is a revolutionary. The work that my hon. Friend does with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is so important, because it builds on the essential liberty of people and on the fundamental principle that P. C. Chang embedded into the universal declaration of human rights: that of respect for individual choice and that a community should be able to choose its own destiny.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not for me to tell the Republic of China (Taiwan) how it wishes to name itself and what it wishes to choose, but nor is it for Beijing. It is for the people on the island of Taiwan to decide for themselves how they wish to shape their future. We here recognise that principle not just in overseas jurisdictions such as the Falkland Islands; we even recognised it in 2014 in respect of part of our integral United Kingdom. Although my hon. Friend and I were on the same side of the argument then and some on the Opposition Benches were on the other side, we all recognised the sovereignty of the people of these islands to choose the shape of their liberty and the way in which they expressed the community to which they felt they belonged. If we recognised that freedom even when it hurt us most and when it cost us dearest, why should we not recognise it for people who have absolutely the same inherent rights as anybody on these islands and have, indeed, demonstrated time and again that they have not only the capability but the will to express their freedom through democracy and to choose leaders whom we sometimes like and sometimes do not? Surely it is up to them, not up to Beijing.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but of course it is important to realise that Taiwan’s excellent President has deliberately avoided making any call for independence. The House should reflect on that in terms of our own position.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I repeat my statement: it is not for me to change the name of the representative of the island here, but it is for me to recognise that the people of that island have the right to choose.

We can, at this point, get into a different debate about Lithuania. I pay huge tribute to Mr Landsbergis, Lithuania’s Foreign Minister, for his courage in standing up against the bullying of Beijing. He has demonstrated that many larger countries that currently bow down and pretend they do not have a choice actually do have a choice. Lithuania may have a great past in which it was a huge grand duchy, but the reality of the size of the state today is that it is not one of the P5. Yet Lithuania has taken the courageous decision to defend itself.

I will close my speech with this last point: over the past four or five years we have seen an evolution of pressure on us and others around the world that is undermining democracy, that is eroding our freedoms and that imperils our economic future. This is a choice for us all. The decision to stand with free peoples in Taiwan and Ukraine is about standing up for our own liberties and freedoms. That is why the House is right to push for it and the Government are right to back it.

13:28

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate.

Taiwan has made significant progress while the People’s Republic of China has stalled. While China remains an authoritarian state, shrouded in secrecy and frequently accused of human rights abuses, Taiwan has taken the necessary steps to grow into something much more aligned with our modern-day values. Taiwan enjoys high levels of press freedom, unlike the PRC; has committed to important climate goals that are more ambitious than the PRC’s; and has built an inclusive and tolerant society. Taiwan has freedom of religious belief and is the only country in Asia to have legalised LGBTQ+ marriage.

Such extensive reforms mean that Taiwan is now categorised as a full democracy, ranking as the No. 1 democracy in Asia and the 11th worldwide, according to The Economist’s democracy index. It is impressive progress and further illustrates that Taiwan deserves, and has earned, a seat at the table.

Continuing to support Taiwan’s participation in international forums with only observer status is no longer enough. We should be leading from the front on the issue, not only by calling for it to be meaningfully included in the United Nations system, but by asking the international community to join us in those calls. With its rich cultural diversity and policy expertise, there is much it could contribute if it were allowed to. For example, its national health insurance scheme is internationally recognised as a model national healthcare system with good accessibility and national coverage, yet it is still excluded from the World Health Assembly.

As the seventh-largest economy in Asia, and the 21st globally, strong trade ties between the UK and Taiwan would be economically hugely mutually beneficial. Being Scottish, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the value of Scotch whisky. In 2020, it was the fourth-largest international market for the drink. In that year, the value of Scottish goods exports to Taiwan was about £206 million, which is the second-highest region in the UK as defined by Department for International Trade statistics. From a moral perspective, it would exemplify our core trading principles of democracy and human rights.

Strengthening our diplomatic ties would serve to strengthen defence and security measures too. China continues to modernise its military. The Government admit that

“China’s…growing international assertiveness will pose an increasing risk to UK interests.”

China has made flagrant incursions into Taiwan’s waters and airspace in a way that could be defined as aggressive.

I am cautious of conflating two different issues, but it is difficult to set aside the current political context of the tension on the borders of Ukraine. President Xi Jinping has given President Putin his support in his campaign against an expansion of NATO, which further aligns the two nations in the face of tension with the west. Although there are clear differences between Ukraine and Taiwan in their history, current political climate and hypothetical international responses, the basic issue of sovereignty remains at the heart of both. As long as Russia and China align themselves, the world will wonder what there is to gain and why China is watching what happens in Ukraine so closely.

The Government take the stance that relations in the Taiwan strait should be resolved through constructive dialogue and that it is not the UK’s place to intervene unnecessarily, but we should recognise the benefits of supporting Taiwan’s future development and take the steps to do it. The Government should not support the oppression of any independent states by authoritarian Governments whether proactively or, as is the case here, passively. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out the Government’s position on the continuing co-operation and friendship between the UK and Taiwan.

13:33

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As the chair of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group, of course I have become concerned at the growing intimidation that the country is experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) outlined so well. Taiwan is one of the UK’s most stalwart supporters and trading partners, and it donated more than 1 million masks to our NHS during the covid crisis, which is a very decent thing to do.

We have already heard that about 23.5 million people live in Taiwan. We have also heard that it is a fully functioning democracy. It has a very good record of holding free and fair elections and there has not been much time since it started doing so. When those elections occur, and one party loses, the transfer of power is pretty smooth, which is not often the case in many other countries in Asia.

We have also heard that, diplomatically, Taiwan is banned from United Nations membership. We chucked it out—it was us. We effectively chucked it out of the Security Council; that is the end of it. I understand why it happened, but we were part of that movement. It has also been expelled from the observer status it held in the World Health Organisation. Again, the medical teams it sends out when there is a disaster are world beating. Those teams are first rate.

China consistently opposes anything Taiwan does. For instance, it refuses to accept Taiwanese passports and denies entry to any international forum where it has influence—and that is quite a lot of them now. Economically, China is perfectly willing to accept Taiwanese money to invest in the country, but it refuses to accept or allow any other commercial activity from the island. At the same time, we have heard from many other hon. Members that Taiwan is under constant and unmitigated cyber-attack from China, reaching into every aspect of Taiwanese society.

There is now a large British business presence in Taiwan; UK investment in Taiwan reached £450 million in 2020, covering a wide range of sectors, from financial services to pharmaceuticals, from information and communications technology to offshore wind. As we have Scottish representatives here, I must say that Taiwan whisky was voted the world’s best three years running: there is currently Kavalan in my office and I very much enjoy it. [Interruption.] Is that an intervention from my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? No? Let me carry on.

Currently, I gather, British companies are investing in 1,307 projects in Taiwan. We have also heard that in September last year, Taiwan submitted its application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are planning to join that too, and I very much hope the Minister will confirm that we would support Taiwan’s membership.

Militarily—I have looked at this quite a lot over the past few years—the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is having its defence expenditure increased by about 10% a year, year on year. It is reorganising. My hon. Friend the Member for—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Tonbridge and Malling.

[Bob Stewart]

Dear me, I am so sorry. I should know that. It is not far away. He made the point that the army is reorganising for expeditionary warfare, meaning amphibious landings, even though Taiwan is 100 miles away. I am particularly worried about the way the islands and atolls, which we have not mentioned, in the South China sea are being colonised—and I do use that word, colonised. They are being occupied, expanded and militarised. In truth, they are well outside China’s traditional area of interest. The Chinese intention is clear: to make the whole South China sea national waters of China.

In the air, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force crossed the median line of the Taiwan strait 950 times in 2021, a 150% increase in air activity over the previous year. Since 1 January, I gather there have been 143 intrusions in just over a month. It particularly worries me that the No. 1 openly expressed aim of Chinese policy is to take back Taiwan. Indeed, Peter Dutton, the Defence Minister of Australia, has openly declared that he believes the Chinese will be going into Taiwan very soon. What does “going into Taiwan” mean? To me, it could mean a military invasion. So there is a growing and present threat to Taiwan from mainland China, and of course that should worry us. It worries us because 40% of the world’s trade transits through the South China sea. What happens in those crucial trade groups must be of great concern to us.

As a soldier I served in Hong Kong. I thought it was a great place, fabulous. It used to share our values of civil liberty, democracy and the rule of law, but recently all that is fast disappearing. In the region, Taiwan remains a beacon of democracy. It also has huge strategic importance. I believe it is in the frontline of the global struggle to resist authoritarian efforts to undermine human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling outlined much better than I could. I agree that it is very good news that Taiwan that has now legalised LGBTQ marriage. It is the only country in Asia that has, by the way.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. What he is putting so well is the very many shared values we have with Taiwan, the sort of freedom, openness and innovation that the people of Hong Kong used to enjoy as well. That is surely a template for what the Chinese Communist party would like to do with Taiwan if ever it had the opportunity to do so. Does he share my great fear? The great design of President Xi, as he has made no pretence of hiding, is what he calls the reunification of China, which could only mean bringing the freedom-loving and freedom-enjoying people of Taiwan under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist party, and inflict on them the same form of intimidation and oppression the people of Tibet, Xinjiang and now the people of Hong Kong are sadly seeing?

[Bob Stewart]

My very good and hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said in the Chamber before that if China was to develop a model much like Taiwan, it would be to the benefit of China. Taiwan is the beacon. It is a hugely successful economy. It is good news that there are some 13,000 Taiwanese students in British universities, with 4,000 at postgraduate level. By way of return, which I think is very interesting, there are an increasing number of British students studying in Taiwan. They are mainly learning Mandarin, of course.

[Alicia Kearns]

Earlier, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee rightly raised Confucius Institutes. Members may not know that the country with the highest number of Confucius Institutes per head of population is Scotland. That should be of grave concern. Does my right hon. Friend think that, given that Taiwanese people speak Mandarin and write a higher level of more ancient Chinese, we could perhaps look to them to provide more education in Mandarin in this country? Let me make one other quick point on drawing comparisons. Does he find it interesting that the Chinese Government have felt the need to sanction both Taiwanese and British parliamentarians? How shameful it is that they continue to attack our democracies.

[Bob Stewart]

The answer to both of my hon. Friend’s questions is yes and yes. I totally agree. I note that President Tsai Ing-wen has committed Taiwan to having Mandarin and English as dual official languages within eight years, which is tremendous.

I am conscious of time, and I have banged on for longer than I thought I would. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I always do, for far too long. In summary, we and all people in the world who think like us should do everything we can to defend the democracy and values of Taiwan. Its security challenges and survival as a thriving, successful model mean a great deal to us and to the world.

13:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) very much for her excellent introduction to the debate. The contributions so far have been enlightening. I must also thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. On most occasions, he and I are on the same page on almost everything. I noted his comment about whiskey and understand that Bushmills whiskey from Northern Ireland is one of the best sellers in Taiwan, so perhaps we have strong economic relations as well.

[Bob Stewart]

I assure the hon. Member, who is a very good friend, that I also have Black Bush—a Northern Irish whiskey—in my office and have always had a sample of it for 35 years.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not surprised—by the way, I suspect that it is half-empty. [Interruption.] Perhaps more than half. In seriousness, the debate is about strengthening the ties between Taiwan and the UK, and I am proud to be associated with Taiwan, which is a bastion of freedom in an oppressed area. Taiwan stands out clearly to me, to all those who have spoken and to all who will speak after as a bastion of democracy and liberty. Information kindly provided to me highlights that, since the 1980s, Taiwan has overseen democratic reforms. Significantly, in 2020, it rose 20 places in The Economist democracy index to 11th worldwide, which shows its commitment to liberty, freedom and democracy.

Taiwan ranks as the No. 1 democracy in Asia, with The Economist describing it as 2020’s “star performer” and upgrading it to the “full democracy” category. It is in the interests of the UK and all liberal democracies to promote peace and stability in the region, especially as the UK increases its level of engagement with the Indo-Pacific region and aims to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It seems to me, as Member of Parliament for Strangford and on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, that our relationship with Taiwan is incredibly good and perhaps we can build on it.

In building a network of liberty, Taiwan has become the frontline of democracy against China’s expanding authoritarianism, and I stand with Taiwan in that aim. I absolutely love the Olympics and follow it every morning, looking for those medals to come—so far, they have not, but we live in hope—but I watch our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team at the Winter Olympics in the knowledge of China’s ongoing treatment of the Uyghurs, the Christians, the Tibetans and the Falun Gong practitioners. My friend the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and I have spoken about this very issue on many occasions and, whether it is in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, we are on the same page. It concerns me greatly that China’s expansionism and imperialistic goals are at the expense of those Christians and other ethnic minorities. We see those who happen to have a different religious outlook or view on the world subjected to commercial-level organ transplantation.

Although we are focusing on UK-Taiwan friendship and co-operation today, I am conscious that at the same time there is an axis of evil, to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—four countries, two of which are trying to perfect nuclear power and two of which already have. I am incredibly worried about that. For instance, I understand that in the last week Iran has perfected a missile that can travel 900 miles; North Korea is trying to do the same, although Russia and China are certainly behind on the expertise. But if those missiles can reach 900 miles, they can strike at the heart of Israel and other western countries in the middle east. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the axis of evil shows that we need to have a steely reserve. Although we have seen some of that, I am not sure that we have seen enough. Quite honestly, we need to strike fear into the axis of evil to ensure that those countries understand that if they do something out of place, we will be in a position to strike back with the same intensity.

Way back in 2012 and 2013, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have always remembered our visit to Kenya, because the roads built in Kenya in 2012 and 2013—and probably before—were built by the Chinese. The Chinese influence goes far beyond the far east to the middle east, Africa and South America, with China using vast amounts of finance to encourage countries to withdraw their allegiance or political support for Taiwan. Again, China is core to that axis of evil.

When I see a nation like Taiwan, it is beyond difficult for me to understand how we could not do everything possible to strengthen the relationship—not simply to benefit our nation, but to support democracy in Taiwan. In the military sphere, there is a greater role for the UK to co-ordinate with the US, Japan and Australia, as it tilts to the Indo-Pacific. It is essential that Taiwan is a part of that delicate balance. We must ensure that Taiwan knows that we are on its page and are there to support it.

Over the course of 2021, there were 950 intrusions by People’s Liberation Army Air Force military planes into the Taiwan zone, which is an 150% increase on the 380 sorties recorded in 2020. In January 2022, there were 143 intrusions within 24 days. There is a consistent and worrying build-up in such cases. Looking at the aircraft that China is sending in gives us an idea that its intentions could well be destruction, evil and murder. The military aircraft used in these activities include, but are not limited to: the H-6 strategic bomber; JH-7 fighter jets; reconnaissance models; and the Y-9 electronic warfare aircraft. Those are all part of the influence of that country.

It is clear that things are escalating, and our support for Taiwan is necessary not simply from the perspective of military aid, but because we rely on Taiwan to be able to carry out its business. For instance, Taiwan is estimated to account for a fifth of global chip manufacturing and half of all cutting-edge capacity. Our dependence on Taiwan is important for us in the free world—not just for us here in the UK, but for everyone. Any action that could impact Taiwan’s production and disrupt that vital global supply chain would be of concern to the UK and the whole world.

Total trade in goods and services—exports plus imports—between the UK and Taiwan was £8 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2021. That was an increase of 14.4% or £999 million on the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2020. Our trade with Taiwan is important and growing, and can continue to grow. Taiwanese companies have invested in 222 projects in the United Kingdom. British companies have invested in a total of 1,307 projects in Taiwan.

We already have a clear and vital relationship, which we can—and must—build on. The message from this House today is clear from me, my party and as part of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: we stand with Taiwan, be assured of that. We are committed to Taiwan physically, emotionally, financially and culturally, and we hope that economically we can grow. We must not allow the independence of this stalwart nation to be overcome. Rather than lament the further erosion of democracy, now is the time to strengthen mutually beneficial ties, and to keep an eye on the long game. We are in the business of the long game, and we have got to get it right.

00:00

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this debate today to discuss British-Taiwanese relations. It is a true friend to our country, and it is high time that we discussed it on the Floor of the House. Taiwan is a beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy in a region of the world overshadowed by a larger neighbour that has demonstrated, time and again, total disregard for human rights and freedoms.

The United Kingdom shares a deep and enduring relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a true friend to the United Kingdom. We share the same values. We enjoy close bilateral co-operation, and Taiwan is one of our most significant trading partners. Taiwan is exactly the kind of sovereign, forward-looking, collaborative nation that global Britain should be forging stronger ties with. Now that Britain is free of the constraints of the European Union, I urge the Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), to make it one of her priorities.

From its exemplary response to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, to its pioneering work in technology, Taiwan is a country to emulate and one that the United Kingdom should certainly be working together with much more closely. In contrast, the People’s Republic of China is, to be clear, a totalitarian, anti-democratic, communist state that continues its threatening campaign of fear and intimidation against the people of Taiwan.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I agree completely with what my hon. Friend is saying. Taiwan is one of the great success stories of the far east. It has a multicultural liberal democracy, a growing economy, fantastic trade and many political freedoms and press freedoms. It is superbly championed worldwide, not least by the excellent Taipei representative in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that Taiwan should be celebrated and not threatened?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Taiwan is a model of a country that has succeeded against all the odds. It is a nation that should be upheld as a great example of what can be achieved in a part of the world where there are so many failing countries. Taiwan has bucked the trend and proved that it can be successful, so I hope that in this House today we will celebrate Taiwan and all its achievements.

In 2022, the behaviour by the People’s Republic of China, and how it threatens Taiwan, is completely unacceptable, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan. I hope that today in this House we can restate our strong friendship and commitment to Taiwan and the magnificent Taiwanese people. For me, it has always felt wrong that the United Kingdom does not have any formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan and no official embassy while, at the same time, China can use economic leverage to bludgeon other states to cut ties with Taiwan.

It was our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who visited Taiwan in 1992 and hailed Taiwan’s rapid democratisation and the Taiwanese miracle. She recognised Taiwan for what it still is: an example of how freedom has triumphed. Some years later, in 2013, the Taiwanese ambassador’s exclusion from Lady Thatcher’s funeral at St Paul’s Cathedral—decided by the Cabinet Office, I have to say, and despite my personal efforts and appeals to Ministers at that time—was a stark demonstration of the vindictive effect of China’s insistence that Taiwan should be completely excluded from any kind of diplomatic representation.

The Chinese Communist party operates indirectly, cutting off Taiwan’s support networks and isolating it diplomatically. It cannot be right to force a country such as Taiwan, which, to all intents and purposes, is an independent, democratic, sovereign state, to operate permanently under the terms of another hostile country. The CCP should not be able to dictate Taiwan’s bilateral relations with any other state in a world where self-determination of peoples is something that we all expect, or so I thought. It is a right. It is time that the western democracies looked afresh at the policy of not allowing Taiwan the diplomatic presence it needs and truly deserves.

I pay tribute to the work of His Excellency Ambassador Kelly, and his incredible and dedicated team who operate the Taipei representative office in London, for building ever stronger relations with the United Kingdom. If ever there was an example of an ambassador who works extremely hard to build a relationship with our country, it is Ambassador Kelly. I thank him for all he does to build those friendships and relationships with the peoples of this United Kingdom. I thank his staff for all their work with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, particularly the British-Taiwanese all-party group; they do a magnificent job. As vice-chairman of the all-party group, and indeed president of Conservative Friends of Taiwan, I am proud to have worked with Ambassador Kelly and all his predecessors for around three decades, ever since the Free Chinese Centre existed in London way back in the 1980s. My friendship with Taiwan goes back all that way, and I am very proud of it.

I have had the honour of visiting Taiwan on many occasions. My first visit was in 1998, when I was there as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, the global right-of-centre youth organisation. I worked closely with the Kuomintang, which was then in power. More recently, in 2017, I led a delegation of the UK Parliament to Taiwan through the all-party group. I was privileged to meet President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s very own Iron Lady, who takes no nonsense from Beijing, and rightly so. I also recently met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Taiwan during his visit to London just prior to Christmas.

It is clear that dialogue and diplomacy are the greatest tools in our arsenal to support the people of Taiwan, and it is essential that we continue these exchanges. I commend and support my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee—so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who spoke earlier in this debate—and I wish them Godspeed as they visit Taiwan in a couple of weeks. I am only sorry that I will not be joining them on this occasion, but I have visited many times and hope to do so again.

Today, China casts a long red shadow over Taiwan. I believe it is our duty to stand with Taiwan alongside the United States of America, our European allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region, India, Australia and Japan, to defend the freedom of the Taiwanese people against any possible aggression that threatens Taiwan’s democratic way of life. The crackdown in Hong Kong shows China’s willingness to repudiate democracy and install its own authoritarian rule, despite international condemnation and opposition, so we must treat any assault on Taiwan as a direct assault on our own liberal democracy. We cannot walk by on the other side; we must stand with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the light of democracy shines through. Indeed, the white sun of the Taiwanese flag reminds us that the ideals of liberty and freedom must always prevail.

Strengthening our relationship further will send an unambiguous signal to China that aggression will not be tolerated. In this vein, I ask the Minister: why should Taiwan not be allowed to participate in the World Health Organisation, Interpol and the different bodies within the United Nations, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation? I hope that Taiwan, together with us, will be joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—two great free trading nations joining together—and why not observer membership of the Commonwealth? We have heard already about English becoming a dual common language of Taiwan, so why not at least observer status in the Commonwealth? Would that not be a great symbol of friendship between Britain, the Commonwealth and the people of Taiwan?

This is the 21st century, and Taiwan’s exclusion is shocking and, quite frankly, dangerous. Taiwan demonstrated its value early in 2020. It raised concerns that covid-19 could be spread through person-to-person transmission before the People’s Republic of China did, yet that is where the virus originated. The implementation of a virus screening programme for international arrivals meant that the coronavirus was contained without resorting to full lockdowns. The world should have learnt from Taiwan in those early days of the pandemic, but not being part of the WHO, its early warning was downplayed. This example illustrates that these are crucial organisations that Taiwan should be involved in, for the benefit of its own people, for their safety and security, and the rest of the world, too. Why should it not be there, participating as a player in that organisation?

We need Taiwan to play its part in the exchange of ideas and to share its technical knowledge and expertise. The people of Taiwan also demonstrated their commitment to the friendship with the United Kingdom when they donated 1 million surgical masks to our NHS at a time of critical need. They have our gratitude, which demonstrates the character and virtue of the close ties with Taiwan.

The United Kingdom must now focus on developing a free exchange of goods and ideas, technological innovation, mutual support and co-operation with our Taiwanese friends. There should be no reason why Britain should not also quickly pursue a free trade agreement with Taiwan, so let us make that a priority in the coming years. Free trade and democracy will continue to bind us together and strengthen a dynamic, forward-looking relationship with Taiwan, as we seize the new opportunities for collaboration that I believe lie before us.

Let me conclude by wishing the people of Taiwan good fortune, good health and prosperity for the lunar new year. In this the year of the tiger, let us this day send the people of Taiwan a clear and unambiguous message that they have and will continue to have the steadfast and unwavering support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

14:09

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate, and thank everyone who has spoken in it. Taiwan, though it may not be large, is very important economically—a point that has been made—morally and politically, because it developed into a flourishing, genuine, established democracy at a time when many countries in the region went in the opposite direction. It is a peaceful democracy that makes no aggressive territorial claims on its neighbours and poses no threat to any of them. That, of course, is in great contrast to those who make aggressive territorial claims on Taiwan. That is why we should stand foursquare in support of Taiwan. We ought to be supportive of those who embrace values of democracy and freedom, and who wish to co-exist peacefully with others, secure prosperity for themselves, and contribute to the greater global good, which is what Taiwan has always sought to do.

I declare my interest as a member of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group. I, too, have had the pleasure of visiting it, and have met many Taiwanese representatives when they have come here, and I, too, salute the work of Ambassador Kelly and the Taipei representative office in the UK. He and his predecessors—we have had a number of representatives over the years—have done great work for their country, and to improve our relations.

I appreciate that the exclusion of Taiwan from many international organisations is unjust, unfair and unhelpful to the greater good. Changing that is not unilaterally in this country’s gift, but I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to make the case for that, and to seek to build a coalition with our democratic allies and partners in order to achieve that objective. We have to be persistent on that. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we must never give up hope that decency and freedom will ultimately prevail against the forces of darkness, which are unfortunately in coalition against us.

I want to talk about the importance of Taiwan’s evolution; under Chiang Kai-shek, in the early days of the Kuomintang, it was a frankly autocratic society that did not always respect the rule of law, though there was nothing like the appalling behaviour on mainland China after the civil war. Taiwan was able to move away from that without disruption or violence. It became a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law and has established a vibrant, independent judiciary and legal framework. When I had the pleasure of visiting Taiwan, I had the honour of meeting President Tsai, whom I greeted as a fellow alumnus of the London School of Economics, where she did a doctorate of philosophy in law; she trained as a lawyer.

Taiwan has developed a vigorous and robust legal system. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly asserted the independence of the judiciary from the other arms of the state. In fact, the independent justice movement of the 1990s was one of the beacons that led to the democratisation of Taiwan’s society. Many of its leading lights were lawyers and jurists. That demonstrates the importance internationally of commitment to independent judges, courts and lawyers, and the rule of law. Taiwan has moved in exactly the direction that we should encourage others to take.

It is interesting that, since 2002, Taiwan has moved from having an inquisitorial system in criminal cases to something much closer to the adversarial system with which we in common-law countries are familiar—a system in which both sides have the right to be represented by counsel. I hope that we will continue to use the fact that we are the birthplace of common law and of that adversarial criminal justice system to try to assist Taiwan and build bridges. I hope that we can encourage British lawyers to develop partnerships with Taiwanese lawyers, and can build on the work of our further education contacts. The President is a great example of that, and of soft power. I hope, too, that we can encourage the work of the British Council, whose representatives I had the pleasure of meeting in Taipei, because it is an important means of developing those contacts, which we do not always make enough of.

Taiwan has undertaken further reforms in this field. In 2006, it abolished the regrettable mandatory death penalty for certain classes of offence, which it inherited in the days immediately after the war. In fact, there has been an almost complete cessation in the use of the death penalty in recent years, with one unfortunate exception, and there is still a vigorous and active campaign to support that change.

In 2009, Taiwan ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which sets it apart from those who aggressively assert claims against it. A threshold for joining those covenants was an acceptance that Taiwan was on an

“irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty.”

Moving forward, we see a progressive and, in the proper sense, small-l liberal polity and system, which we ought to be supporting.

It is important to recognise, as has already been observed, the progress that Taiwan has made in relation to same-sex marriages and equal rights for LGBT communities. Generally, it has a good position, compared with many of its neighbours, on the index of commitment to the rule of law. That is something we should continue to sustain. As we go forward, I hope we can build upon those links.

Contrast has been made frequently to what has sadly happened in Hong Kong. I have had the pleasure of visiting that jurisdiction too, and it is a sadness to me, as when I read law at the London School of Economics a number of my colleagues went on to qualify as barristers in the United Kingdom, before returning to practice at the Hong Kong Bar. Some went on to hold distinguished office in the Hong Kong judiciary. They did so at a time when they still had the protection of the agreements we had entered into to ensure Hong Kong’s independent legal system. Sadly, those have been unliterally abrogated by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. I never want to see that happen to the legal system in Taiwan. I privately weep, almost, for some of my friends who stayed in their country, but who now see their freedom of action and manoeuvre as lawyers increasingly constrained, and a stranglehold put on what was once the most vibrant and successful legal and judicial system to be found in that part of south-east Asia. We must not let that happen to Taiwan.

That is why not only shall we stand four-square with the Taiwanese in political and moral terms, but, where necessary, without seeking to start aggression, we will ensure that military and naval force is available to deter aggression by others, and we will work closely with our allies, including Australia and others in that area. If we believe in democracy, the importance of the rule of law, human rights and personal freedoms, Taiwan is a beacon that we shall support.

It is important that we have this debate and we place this motion on the record. As a country, we have always sought to assert these things, sometimes with more success than at other times, but they are basically in our DNA. With the dispensation we have now in Taiwan, that is something we share with the Taiwanese people, who have worked hard to achieve that, at real sacrifice to themselves, over the years. It is important that we reassert our commitment to stand by them, against those who seek to snuff out the lights of freedom and justice. We must never allow that to happen.

14:18

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate.

I genuinely consider it an honour and a pleasure to be speaking on my party’s behalf in this debate. Before we had decided I would do so, I had already asked to speak in the debate, having visited Taiwan as part of an international youth culture and study tour back in 2013—believe it or not, I still qualified under the term “youth” at that stage—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). We had a wonderful two-week official visit and then some of us stayed on for a number of days to further experience the culture and landscapes of Taiwan, across Taipei, Taichung and Tainan. So it is a wonderful opportunity to take part in the debate today.

One of the most important aspects of this debate is democracy and the principle of self-determination. Hugh MacDiarmid once wrote of Robert Burns:

“Mair nonsense has been uttered in his name than in ony’s, barrin liberty and Christ.”

The same, in some senses, could be said about self-determination, so lest it become a buzzword, let us remind ourselves of exactly what that means: it is a group of people’s right to determine how and by whom they wish to be governed. What that means in practice is that when we stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression, we stand for self-determination. When the UK reminds Argentina about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, we are standing for self-determination. When the Scottish Government assert that Scots deserve the right to have a say in our future by voting for a pro-independence Government, as they did last year, we are asserting our right to self-determination. We do not get to pick and choose who is allowed self-determination. The whole principle is that we accept that when the people choose what they want as their course for the future. Therefore, if we accept that Ukraine has self-determination, and that the Falklands has it, Scotland has it and so does Taiwan. No ifs, and no buts.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s views about self-determination, but would he accept that both the Falkland Islands and Scotland have had referendums in recent years? The people of Taiwan have never had a referendum, but perhaps they should. If they had a referendum, they could determine their own destiny.

[Owen Thompson]

Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that if the people of Taiwan wanted to have a referendum—and it is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan—I would be 100% behind it. I think people would be astonished to find any disagreement about that among SNP Members. However, self-determination is not a one-time event, one vote and that is the end of it; self-determination is an ongoing process. That is why the SNP believes that an important consideration in determining how Taiwan is governed is what the people of Taiwan want, and how they express those desires at the ballot box.

Viewers in Scotland will already be well acquainted with the double standards of the UK Government when it comes to Scottish self-determination, but at times the Government also fall short of honouring that important principle when it comes to Taiwan. The UK does not recognise Taiwan enough and, as we have heard, there are no formal diplomatic relations with the island. That is something that could be simply looked at and corrected.

[John Nicolson]

It has been deeply heartening to hear so many Conservatives throughout this debate champion the idea of self-determination. Given that there is no international court of arbitration to determine self-determination for countries such as Tibet, is it not all the more important for countries such as the UK to stand up, and for their Governments to be not cowardly but outspoken in supporting those peoples?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is critical that the UK Government lead by example. If we say that we support the right of people to choose, we must demonstrate that we support the right of people to choose. An SNP-led independent Scotland would support Taiwanese accession to multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, recognising Taiwanese wishes to be an active and co-operative global player. Our friendship runs deep and goes beyond the principles of democracy and how we practise it.

We have already heard from many about the huge democratic reforms that have taken place in Taiwan from the ’80s through to the current day, and about the major progress that now sees Taiwan highlighted as a star performer and the No.1 democracy in Asia. However, Taiwan’s deepening democracy chimes with the Scottish Government’s agenda, with both Scotland and Taiwan seeking to broaden and deepen democratic participation. There is a lot we can learn from each other, such as Taiwan’s world-leading efforts to leverage technology and citizen participation into a system of digital democracy, which was most recently credited with containing covid in Taiwan.

Speaking of covid, we have heard about Taiwan’s handling of the pandemic and how exemplary it has been, despite its having only observer status rather than full membership of the WHO. When it comes to technology, it cannot be overstated how important the Taiwanese technological sector is for Scotland and the UK. Semiconductor chips—a resource now essential to all our online lifestyles—are overwhelmingly made in Taiwan, so trade link security is vital. The Scottish Government recognised this and opened a virtual Scottish Development International office in Taipei. Scotland has a positive story to tell on trade with Taiwan, and there are many areas of potential growth w full trading powers after independence. To name a few sectors with huge potential for trade and co-operation, we need look no further than the UK’s list of market access ambitions following the 24th annual UK-Taiwan trade talks: energy, offshore wind power, financial services, agriculture and whisky. These are all Scottish specialties.

As a fan of a malt myself, I cannot help but mention that, according to the Scotch Whisky Association, Taiwan was the fourth largest export destination for Scotch whisky by value in 2020, so slàinte to that. I particularly enjoy Taiwanese whisky, which has a very distinct taste—there is a certain sweetness that is not there in some of the single malts from up the road.

Trade opportunities are, of course, supplemented by academic collaboration. Between 7,000 and 8,000 Taiwanese students study in the UK each year, and Taiwan’s aim to become a society that is fully bilingual in English and Mandarin will make collaboration even easier.

The parallels between Scotland and Taiwan, and our shared ambitions, also extend to our climate priorities. The Taiwanese Government have committed to achieving net zero by 2050, with a target of 25% renewable energy by 2025. British Office Taipei has promoted UK offshore wind companies, many from Scotland, to Taiwanese partners. There is also scope for climate co-operation with the Scottish Government’s ScotWind strategy. Scottish Development International is exploring the possibility of a strategic partnership with Taiwan that would allow renewable energy supply chain companies to access the Taiwanese market much more easily.

Among all this, we cannot avoid the elephant in the room. China’s current denial of Taiwan’s right to self-determination and its insistence that Taiwan is merely a stray province of the PRC is a major concern. All this puts Taiwan’s future at risk, and we have a moral obligation in this place to stand against it, as we do to protect the self-determination of all peoples and nations.

Taiwan’s principled moves set an example to Scotland that small states can punch well above their weight. In an increasingly fraught and global world, smaller does not have to mean weaker. We have concerns that the Government’s integrated review makes no mention of Taiwan, and I hope they will correct that omission by reflecting the importance of Taiwan in their China strategy. It is perplexing that Taiwan is not afforded due consideration in the Government’s most recent foreign policy document. I sincerely hope that concern will be seriously considered and acted on.

When I look back at my time in Taiwan, I think of the friends I made from South Africa, Norway, Sweden, St Kitts, Bermuda and across the globe. We had a wonderful time exchanging ideas and thoughts with each other, and these will always be friendships. To the people of Taiwan, I simply say, “Yŏngyuăn de péngyou.”

14:28

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Xièxie, wo men dōu shì péngyou. That was a lovely finish to the speech by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and I am sure we could all practise our Mandarin.

A big thank you—a big xièxie—to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for, once again, securing an excellent Thursday debate that shows the importance of our Parliament to the Taiwanese Parliament and the Taiwanese people by putting on record our friendship. Our voices come from different political parties, but we are saying broadly the same thing about the importance of the deep and rich friendship between the UK and Taiwan.

Although the UK has no formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, we can be proud of the people-to-people relationships, of which we have heard, from people’s different trips according to different themes. Those relationships will transcend politics and diplomacy. We have heard that British and Taiwanese students engage in fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, our businesses work closely to invest in the technologies of the future. Our doctors and scientists co-operate on how to learn and treat illnesses such as covid, which Taiwan has done so well to handle without the level of death and disruption experienced by so many other countries across the globe.

On a broader level, we can say with some confidence that Taiwan is a beacon of liberty in the Asia-Pacific. It was the first Asian country to recognise same-sex marriage. It is a vibrant and functioning multi-party liberal democracy with a booming tech sector and a free press. It is a recognised global leader in health and education. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) gave us an important lesson in the progress that has been made from the days of the Kuomintang all the way through to today and the exchange that we can now have on the legal practices in the UK and in Taiwan. We also think about the sadness that we all share that, unfortunately, things could be going in reverse in Hong Kong, which is usually such a beacon of legal practice.

There are, however, clear and present challenges facing the people of Taiwan. The Chinese Government have made no attempt to disguise their willingness to use force to occupy Taipei if their persuasion on reunification fails. It is crucial that we use opportunities such as today to underline our resolve to stand with the people of Taiwan in the face of threats to their liberty and way of life, and to put on record our concern regarding the increase in military activity around the waters of Taiwan. We in this House should say with one voice that Taiwan’s future should never be settled by force or coercion.

Members from across the House have given examples of their connections with Taiwan and their friendships, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I know that the Minister will want to respond in some depth to what has been raised. In particular, will she respond to the points that were made eloquently by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) about the lack of an overarching strategy for the region? That is really what he was laying out, including the way in which this relates not just to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but goes across education, business and investment and the trade piece, so that we can have a genuinely cohesive strategy in future.

I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is on Taiwan’s membership of international organisations. We have all mentioned that because when we have a global pandemic, such as the one we have all been through, it is crucial that we can learn from one another. We would all be the first to say that this goes beyond politics or diplomacy: to save lives, we must hear about best practice. That is what we have seen in the health system and the public health approach in Taiwan because of the experience of SARS— severe acute respiratory syndrome—and other public health challenges. It is terrible that it was frozen out of the World Health Assembly and other similar international bodies. Next time it will be a different challenge, but this is my first challenge to the Minister: will she outline the UK’s position on Taiwan’s membership of the World Health Assembly and other organisations? I urge her to join our allies in pressing for Taiwan’s inclusion.

Secondly, on the intimidation and threats facing Taiwan, I welcome the Government’s commitment to standing up for our allies that have a relationship with Taiwan—Lithuania was mentioned. There is a wider issue, however, of Chinese Government aggression aimed at Taiwan and its international relationships. Will the Minister outline the UK’s continued commitment to stand by our allies and protect their trading relationships with Taiwan?

Thirdly, as I have already highlighted, there is Taiwan’s status as a thriving high-tech economy. As the hon. Member for Midlothian commented, much of this somehow links in with Scotland, which is lovely to see: we have heard a lot about whisky but there are also wind farms and other things. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to deepen and strengthen these mutually beneficial economic ties? I put on record our support for the Government’s continued desire to link trade with democracy and freedom, which is much more straightforward because we do not have to have difficult conversations about human rights issues.

Finally, will the Minister outline what positive steps are being taken to reaffirm and expand the welcome person-to-person links we have with Taiwan in education, science and business? For example, is the Turing scheme, the Government’s new post-Brexit education push, enjoying much linkage there? Within the strategy that the Government no doubt have, is there a link with Taiwanese universities and education, because clearly education plays a key role in reaffirming our friendship?

Today we have a strong chance to put on record that we stand in friendship with Taiwanese people. Many across the House have visited and have friends there, but even without having visited we can stand on the principle of friendship and an ongoing relationship with a fellow democracy.

14:36

[The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this debate on UK co-operation with Taiwan. I thank Members from across the House for their insightful contributions. I will do my best to cover as many of the points raised as possible, because it really has been a lengthy and wide-ranging debate.

Members of the House will be aware of the unique nature of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan. We are not represented by an embassy in Taiwan but rather by a British office. Our team there drive forward our unofficial but undoubtedly important relationship with Taiwan. As we have heard, our relations are built on an increasingly wide range of shared economic, scientific and educational interests, and a shared consideration of global challenges around climate and health.

I start by addressing up front the increased tensions in the Taiwan strait, which a number of Members rightly raised. We have seen the significant impact of China’s military modernisation and growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific region. The UK has a clear interest in ensuring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. Without it, the prosperity and security interests of both the UK and our like-minded partners would surely suffer. It is in this context that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have expressed their concerns at the numerous Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan in recent days and months. These flights are not conducive to regional peace. We need a peaceful resolution to the tensions through a constructive dialogue by people on both sides of the strait. We will continue to work with our international partners on this issue. The G7 Foreign and Development communiqué last May underscored the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan strait. Ministers undertook to encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues. We will continue to prioritise peace and stability in our discussions.

Many Members rightly mentioned trade. Another of our priorities is our trade relationship with Taiwan, which, as many pointed out, is thriving. UK exports to Taiwan rose by 86% between 2016 and 2019. Even last year, as the pandemic took hold, our exports to Taiwan increased by a further quarter. Let me reassure Members that we want to continue to develop that economic relationship, and the Department for International Trade holds annual ministerial trade talks with Taiwan to do just that. The most recent talks were held in October 2021, co-chaired by the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). Those talks deepened the UK’s and Taiwan’s economic and commercial partnerships across a range of areas, and saw progress on market access ambitions including energy and offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and—I must of course mention this—whisky. Taiwan is the fourth largest market for Scottish whisky by value.

The UK and Taiwan are also partners on climate action. We are increasingly sharing expertise on floating offshore wind and multi-use port development. We also collaborate on skills and workforce planning for the renewable energy sector. UK businesses support Taiwan’s ambition to increase its proportion of renewable energy to 20% by 2025. More than 30 UK offshore wind companies have set up operations in Taiwan. The third UK-Taiwan energy dialogue last year promoted our expertise in decarbonisation and offshore wind, and agreed new areas of co-operation including Taiwan’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. The dialogue made progress on market access issues affecting UK companies, and our offshore renewable energy Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding with Taiwan’s top research institute to help new partnerships in energy innovation.

Members mentioned education. Taiwan has set out plans to become a bilingual society in Mandarin and English by 2030. The UK, through the British Council, is a natural partner to help advance English language education, teaching and assessment.

Many touched on support for Taiwan on the international stage. Beyond our UK-Taiwan co-operation, we think it important for the international community to benefit from Taiwanese expertise in a range of areas. We are therefore working with partners to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite, and as an observer or guest where it is. We have worked hard with partners across a range of multilateral organisations to secure meaningful access for Taiwan, in a manner that is consistent with its status, and will continue to make the case in future. For example, at the 2021 World Health Assembly we named Taiwan in the UK’s national speech for the first time, and made the case, alongside like-minded countries, that Taiwan’s inclusion benefits global health. That includes its meaningful participation in ongoing technical meetings and allowing its health experts to access and participate in relevant facilities and virtual formats, as well as information exchange platforms.

As Members have pointed out, we need to learn from Taiwan’s leading example in tackling covid-19. It has rightly won the world’s admiration for its assured response, honed from its experience of SARS and using innovative technology to keep the virus at bay. We have facilitated expert-level dialogues between UK health experts and the Taiwan Centres for Disease Control, and we will continue to take forward plans this year for a UK-Taiwan expert health dialogue.



Members will be aware that Taiwan produces most of the high-performance semiconductors that drive our digital economy. It has a critical role in the technology supply chains that underpin global markets and invests heavily in research and innovation. We want our flourishing co-operation with Taiwan on science and technology to continue.

On semiconductor co-operation, the UK’s Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding in 2020 with Taiwan’s largest applied research institute, the Industrial Technology Research Institute. The MOU provides a platform for co-operation on advanced chips.

Taiwan’s MediaTek, the world’s largest smartphone chip designer has recently expanded its research centres in Cambridge and London. We are keen to build on that co-operation and a project is currently under way through which the UK and Taiwan can scope out new opportunities in the sector.

I am conscious of the time and wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton the opportunity to respond to the debate, so let me conclude. Although the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed, we are proud of our relationship. I reassure the House that we will continue to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite. Enduring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait is not just in the UK interest but a matter of global concern, so we will continue to work with our international partners to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo.

14:46

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. Above all, I thank every Member who has taken the time to contribute to this important discussion. There is unity throughout the House in respect of our commitment to and friendship with the people of Taiwan, whether from our legal eagles, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); from our great gallant gentlemen, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); from our foremost foreign policy expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); or from great whisky drinkers and human rights advocates, such as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).

Most of all, there is a clarity of asks and a clarity of purpose in the House. I hope the Minister can go back to the Department and go through the specific, meaningful and tangible asks to see what more can be done. Yes, there is friendship, there is opportunity and there are shared threats, but today Parliament has spoken with one voice, in the fantastic presence of Ambassador Kelly, to whom we are all grateful for his friendship and work. I again thank everyone who came to the debate, because we have made it clear today that Britain stands firmly behind our ally and firmly behind our good friends the people of Taiwan.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.

Dementia Research in the UK

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

14:48

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, of which I am the co-chair with the wonderful Baroness Sally Greengross, and the Alzheimer’s Society for all its work to support the APPG. I also thank the many Members who agreed to sponsor the debate, although being just before recess it is obviously a difficult slot to fill.

Dementia is one of the biggest health challenges that we face today. It is the UK’s biggest killer and, with an ever-aging population, the number of people living with dementia in the UK and around the world is set to grow. Indeed, figures from the Alzheimer’s Society show that around 900,000 people are currently living with the condition in the UK, and that number is set to grow to 1.3 million by 2030. There will be few of us who do not know somebody who is either living with dementia or affected by it.

That includes me. My mum was 64 when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and unfortunately she died 10 years later. The work I do on the APPG is in her memory, and in recognition that there are millions of families affected by dementia and who are currently caring for people they love who have one of the many degenerative brain diseases that cause dementia. We frequently talk about dementia as though it was just one disease, but it is not. Dementia is a set of symptoms, but there is an array of degenerative brain diseases that make up dementia, of which Alzheimer’s disease is probably the best known.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks movingly about her mum. My mum also had frontotemporal dementia as the cause on her death certificate in 2017, 10 days before polling day—thanks, mum! Towards the end they have a mixture of intransigence, stubbornness, regression and paranoia. A minibus from Ealing Council used to come and take her to a memory clinic in Acton, but it was largely old chaps playing dominoes, and that was not really her scene. She loved entertaining, and it was so sad that someone who used to cook for so many forgot how to swallow by the end. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the shocking “moonshot” that we were promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has never happened, research should look at culturally and gender-appropriate solutions to this awful disease? As she says, so many of us know people who are afflicted by it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about her own experience with her mum’s frontotemporal dementia and the importance of ensuring that we understand, from different cultural perspectives and different ethnicities, the impact of dementia and how we care for our loved ones who have it.

I want this debate to be about hope. That is so important. My hon. Friend has just spoken about her mum, and it was very hard for my mum. She could not speak and could barely move. She could not feed herself. It was a very sad state. However, there is huge optimism and reasons for hope, and that is what I want this debate to be about. I firmly believe that, as with many other conditions, research will find a cure for dementia.

We have one of the best life sciences sectors in the world, as we have seen over the past few years with the work that the University of Oxford and others have undertaken with the covid vaccination programme. Our researchers are rarely talked about, but they are our unsung heroes and we should be immensely proud of the work they do and the significant contribution they make to the economy. I believe it is a matter of when, not if, we will see the breakthroughs that are desperately needed for therapies in dementia research.

However, that is fundamentally dependent on adequate investment. Despite the ever-increasing prevalence of dementia, research into it is consistently and disproportionately underfunded. There is news from the United States of treatments such as aducanumab, which has just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is expected to help people when they are diagnosed with dementia. This is a great and exciting opportunity for the Government to support the field and cement the UK’s place as a world leader in dementia research.

As my hon. Friend has just mentioned, we know that during the 2019 general election the Conservative party promised to double dementia research funding from £83 million to £166 million a year over a 10-year period—the “dementia moonshot”. Similarly, the Labour party has committed to that. We have cross-party consensus, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring forward any of that additional funding. Last year, in fact, there was a 10% fall in the amount of funding provided to dementia research, so it received only £75 million instead of £83 million. That is a huge missed opportunity to expand our research capabilities in that area, to support the inspiring academics working in the field and to provide hope to the millions of people affected by dementia across the UK. It also does not make economic sense, as I will move on to later.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

My mum died of dementia at the start of the covid outbreak. She formed a great attachment to Madam Deputy Speaker, of whom she was very fond, and Madam Deputy Speaker was very fond of her. Her name was Marion. She went from being a sparkling presence to somebody who, at the start of the pandemic, was locked in for her own protection and I was not able to go and see her. I had never before understood the whole idea of somebody turning their face to the wall, but she just stopped eating and drinking, and within a week, she was dead. I hope that when the story of the pandemic is written, we will remember all those people who died because of it and who will never be recorded as having died of covid. They died through loneliness, which is so important for us all to remember.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. May I interrupt to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that his mother was a sparkling presence and a lovely lady? I was very fond of her and it is tragic that he has lost her. We all feel it very deeply with him.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I similarly add my sincere condolences to the hon. Member. I could not agree more with his sentiments. It does affect everybody and it is moving to hear how different hon. Members have been affected by their loved ones. I want to provide hope as well, and I hope that what I go on to say will provide a bit of comfort to him. We must do more on it, though, must we not?

The Government have said that we can expect to see their plans on dementia research in the national dementia strategy. I am grateful to see the Minister in his place, because we have worked together on dementia in the past and I know that he feels as passionately about it as I do. Given that there has been a real hiatus from the manifesto in 2019 to where we are now, and that we have actually slipped backwards, I would be grateful if he could commit to discussions with the Treasury about an announcement in the spring statement next month. That is way overdue and we must provide hope to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the success of previous Governments in the last 15 years. We had our first dementia strategy in 2009. My right hon. Friend, now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, was the author of that fine strategy. We must also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister David Cameron for his work on it. He managed to increase dementia research from just over £28 million to £82 million during his incumbency. Government-led initiatives, such as his challenge on dementia, establishing the UK Dementia Research Institute, and leading the world during our 2014 G8 presidency by hosting the world’s first dementia summit, put us on a good footing to lead the world in this field. We need to build on that, but as I say I fear we are slipping backwards.

I mentioned the importance and urgency of fulfilling that commitment, but I also want to stress the economic argument. We heard last week, in the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, about the huge potential economic benefits of investing in research and development, particularly in the life sciences. Our life sciences sector in the north-west, spanning from Liverpool all the way to Hull, has magnificent research institutes and organisations. We know that extra Government investment acts as a catalyst to unlock private funding. A study conducted by Oxford Economics in 2020 found that each £1 of public money—Government money—is at least doubled. If we look at what that would mean for dementia research, a moonshot investment of £800 million over the next decade could unlock £1.6 billion to £1.8 billion of additional private investment. This is an answer to the levelling-up issue to which the Government have said they are committed. I urge them. This is a source of addressing some of the issues they are facing on that particular policy promise.

It was because of the lack of Government movement on the issue that last year the all-party parliamentary group decided to undertake a dementia research inquiry. As well as making the case for the moonshot, the resulting report, “Fuelling the Moonshot”—do look at it on the Alzheimer’s Society website—set out how the money could be best used to support the sector. Throughout the inquiry, we sought to look at the entire dementia research system. It is important to recognise that, when we talk about dementia research, we do not just mean exploring for cures and treatments, although that is obviously vital; it is also about researching diagnostic methods, how dementia can be prevented and exploring how people with dementia can best be cared for.

Over the course of the inquiry, we took written and oral evidence from hundreds of people living with and affected by dementia, academics, charities, research institutes and research participants. I thank everybody who took part. We could not have produced the quality report we did without their input. They ranged from Exeter, where researchers are investigating how we can improve the quality of life for people with dementia, to Edinburgh, where leading academics are researching the links between dementia and head traumas in sport. What we found was a rich, diverse and passionate set of people working tirelessly to improve the lives of people with dementia and their families, but they need our support and they need Government support.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was not going to speak today because of a clash with a Bill Committee, but I have been asked by several constituents to come in to listen to the debate. The hon. Lady is putting forward a persuasive case. I want briefly to pay tribute to the hidden army of carers across the UK: the current estimate is that there are about 6.5 million of them. They are perhaps saving the Treasury over £100 billion in lost wages. Does she agree that we should do more to increase carer’s allowance and to formally recognise those very selfless and diligent people?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am very grateful to him for coming here. I agree totally with the points he has made to acknowledge the army of family carers who support people living with dementia and the fact that they are supported by a pittance. We need to do much, much more in that regard.

I was coming on to talk about the importance of the work of charities such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society. About half of all the research undertaken is as a result of the funding raised by the Alzheimer’s Society. As many would expect, like other charitable sectors, medical research charities were hit particularly hard as a result of the pandemic. The Association of Medical Research Charities estimated that the pandemic has caused a shortfall of UK medical research investment of at least £310 million. That huge loss of income has of course impacted on funding decisions for these charities. The Alzheimer’s Society had planned to fund two research calls last year, but it was unable to do so because of its financial situation. The same thing was felt across the entire research community. An Alzheimer’s Society survey found that 85% of researchers reported that the pandemic had led to fewer funding opportunities being available for them.

Similarly, like those in nearly every UK sector, dementia researchers have been hard hit by the effects of the pandemic. For many, lockdowns meant that their labs had to close and participants could no longer take in part in trials. I spoke to a researcher in Manchester who had spent months growing brain cells for her research, only for them to have to be thrown away—months of work wasted. The pandemic also had an impact on the work of researchers who worked outside labs. For example, it affected those working in areas that require face-to-face contact with participants—including people with dementia—such as drug, clinical and care intervention trials.

Understandably, many clinical staff were redeployed to work in the frontline NHS throughout the pandemic, and that heavily impacted on the progress of dementia research. An Alzheimer’s Society survey from April 2021 found that almost a quarter of its funded researchers said that they or another team member had been redeployed in the NHS or in frontline services during the pandemic. We know that much of the clinical research that is undertaken depends on the effective clinical running of routine NHS dementia services, and many of those were seriously affected during covid.

One area I was particularly concerned to hear about during the inquiry was the impact of the pandemic on early career researchers. These are researchers who are at the PhD or post-doctoral stage of their careers. For many of them, much of their time and focus is taken up with concerns about where their funding will come from, or whether they will be able to progress any further. One researcher told the all-party group that

“typical…contracts go on for 3 years, and you have to spend a lot of your time in year 3 applying for your next tranche of funding—affecting your productivity.”

She went on to say that

“instead of concentrating on research, academics are having to worry about their mortgage.”

Of course, that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.

There was a concern that having to suffer a break in their research left today’s early career researchers uncompetitive in the job market. There is a fear among those researchers that, when they apply for funding for the next stage of their career, they will not be looked on as favourably as others. In May 2021, the Government announced a fund of £20 million to support those charity-funded ECRs. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his closing remarks, responded to the recommendation that we made in our inquiry report on how we can further support these important researchers, without whom we will not see the next breakthroughs. They are absolutely vital and should not be overlooked.

Throughout my time as co-chair of the all-party group, and particularly during the inquiry, I have been lucky enough to hear at first hand from people living with dementia, and from their families. During the inquiry, I spoke to inspiring people who live with dementia or who have cared for people with dementia, and who gave up their time to participate in dementia research. I was struck by the sense of empowerment that this gave them. They know that the activities that they are undertaking may not help them directly, but they recognise that the research may support better care, treatments and even a cure for someone in the future.

To ensure that the UK is a world leader in dementia research, we must be able to attract participants to take part in trials. As one research participant put it:

“Too often research feels something that is just done to someone, rather than something that people can be a part of.”

People often do not know how they can be involved in dementia research. I want to draw everyone’s attention to Join Dementia Research UK. I encourage everyone, including hon. and right hon. Members, to sign up to it. It can link them up to research projects happening across the UK, and that is how we will help to make progress. The service is currently trialling writing to people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. I would be grateful if the Minister said a little bit about how his Department could support Join Dementia Research UK with its pilot and help to roll it out.

Former England rugby union player Ben Kay is one such research participant who has also taken part in our inquiry. He has spoken quite openly about how important it is for him to be involved in the Alzheimer’s Society’s funded research programme that investigates the links between rugby and dementia. I am sure many Members here will be familiar with this not just in rugby, but in football. Nobby Stiles springs to mind, but we also know that Bobby Charlton, a particular hero of mine, has been affected. We need to understand head trauma in all forms of sport: not just those that use the different shaped balls that boys in particular play on football and rugby fields, but other sports as well. That issue, the Minister will know, has been of growing interest, particularly in the media. Again I would be grateful if he said how, with his cross-departmental work, he has been able to support this. Extra funding through the moonshot could really expand our knowledge of that area, so we can ensure that everybody can participate in sport safely. It is also important to ensure that people understand the risks and what steps they can take to minimise them, which is another area of research being undertaken.

One of the most exciting areas in dementia research at the moment is diagnosis. There is a real prospect that very soon we could see blood biomarker tests readily available to help to ensure people receive not just an accurate, but an early diagnosis, and I am talking many decades before we actually see the physical, behavioural and cognitive symptoms that we are familiar with in dementia. These can be cheap and easy to administer, much like the countless other blood tests that happen day in, day out. Again, I would be very grateful if the Minister responded on how we can make sure that, as those come on line, we can make them readily available.

Before I close my remarks, I would like to highlight some of the excellent research already taking place in the UK, particularly through the UK Dementia Research Institute. Set up 2017, this is the biggest investment the UK has ever made in dementia, thanks to the £290 million donation from founding funders the Medical Research Council, the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. I met the director of the institute during the inquiry and heard of the important work that it is doing.

The UKDRI has over 650 researchers working towards treatments and technologies to improve the lives of people living with dementia, with sites across all parts of the UK, including London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The director, Professor Bart De Strooper, estimated that about a third of his researchers had been attracted to the UK from other parts of the world because of its infrastructure and research capabilities. That shows what a leading role the UK can be proud to play in this area—a world leader. With the Government funding for UKDRI running up to 2023, at which point progress will be reviewed, it is important that this vital asset in the UK’s dementia research system is supported to continue its work. We are only a year away from that, so I hope the Minister is able to say more about that.

There is also great research happening across the UK in the area of care research. We heard from Professor Dame Louise Robinson, who leads an Alzheimer’s Society-funded centre of excellence in Newcastle University. These centres of excellence, which also have sites in Exeter and London, bring together leading researchers to investigate how people with dementia can best be cared for. I am conscious of the interventions that hon. Members made earlier. That research is valuable to those people who currently have dementia in looking at how we can make sure they are properly cared for.

What is concerning is that, although there is a plethora of evidence of how effective care research is, it is not being used. In contrast to the principle of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based care, it is not actually being used, which is staggering. Again, I would be very grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that. Can I just mention this figure? In a review of 170 training manuals for person-centred care in dementia, researchers found that just four—four—provided evidence about what methods worked when tested in a research setting. That is what we are using to train our carers. There is an evidence base, yet it is not being used to underpin that training. We need to do much better on that.

The UK has come a long way in improving our dementia research sector, but it is imperative that we build on that. People living with dementia and their families deserve to see the Government delivering on their general election commitment to dementia moonshot funding and leadership in dementia research such as we saw with the covid vaccine development. I urge the Minister to liaise with the Treasury in the run-up to the spring statement next month and to deliver for the dementia research community and for the country. We can be a world leader in the field, but that will need the Government to fulfil their commitments.

15:15

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for a first-class introduction to the debate. Dementia is an awfully debilitating condition. We all have many constituents who have asked us to pay attention to it and to attend the debate. I have been asked to speak and consider it a duty to do so.

My mother died while suffering from dementia. It was horrid to see a dynamic, wonderful person reduced so greatly that she did not even recognise my sister, who had cared for her. I totally sympathise with the description given by my friend the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) of what happened to his mother. My mother was lonely, she was lost, and it was terrible—a terrible end for her.

As we have heard, the UK has 850,000 dementia sufferers, and it gets so much worse once we are beyond 65. I reckon that roughly one in 70 of the population have dementia. One thing that really strikes me about dementia—it is a vivid image—is how often dementia sufferers are so frightened. I gather—I have not seen it—that they are particularly frightened when they walk into a room with a dark carpet or mat on the floor. They shrink back, because they think it is a hole that would devour them.

I pay tribute to the people who look after those suffering with dementia. That is not just formal carers; it is normally the family. Everyone who has experience of dementia sufferers knows that those carers do so much for those people whom they love, yet they do not get recognition for it. They are looking after someone whom they care about but get no response. It is really difficult. It asks one hell of a lot of people to keep doing it, but, my goodness, they do, often for no money whatsoever; it is simply because of love and what the person was before.

I am pleased to have been briefed by the Alzheimer’s Society, and I am now what it calls a dementia friend. May I urge all colleagues to take the Alzheimer’s Society’s “Dementia Friends” course? I did it in my office. It takes about half an hour. People come and explain about dementia. We may all think we know it, but let people come and talk about it. Then, the more of us who know what it is like and can talk about it, the more of us who can influence Government and the more we can help those poor devils who suffer from dementia and those people who, by extension, are affected so deeply by dementia because they have to look after dementia sufferers.

00:01

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing and leading today’s important debate, and I have enjoyed all the contributions. I thank her for the work of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, which she co-chairs, and the excellent report it published last year on dementia research. The report rightly sets out the need for the Government to honour their commitment and bring forward the dementia moonshot funding as soon as possible. The report also sets out some of the key challenges the sector is facing and where that additional funding could be best used. I know that the Government are currently working on a new national dementia strategy, and I hope that the Minister will use the APPG’s report in its development.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend in her opening contribution: dementia is one of the biggest health challenges facing us today. There are currently 900,000 people in the UK living with dementia. In my city, there are already around 2,690 people living with dementia, and that figure is expected to grow to more than 3,800 by 2030. It is one of the consequences of our ageing population. Dementia does not just affect those who have the condition; it also has a profound impact on family, carers and loved ones. Many, if not all of us know someone who is facing the challenges of living with dementia, and we owe it to them and their families to do what we can to make life that bit easier in the future.

As we all know, there is currently no cure for dementia. Finding a cure must be a key aim, but it is not the only one; we must also invest in research to explore how people with dementia can best be treated and cared for. Dementia is a progressive condition, with the symptoms likely to get worse over time. That has severe implications for family members providing care. I take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Centre for Dementia at the University of Nottingham, based in the Institute of Mental Health. It is addressing precisely that issue. The centre’s mission is to improve the lives of people with dementia and their carers through high-quality, useful research, looking at how people with dementia spend their time and what can help them to get the maximum quality from life.

The University of Nottingham is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is investment in research, and I know from the Alzheimer’s Society, and from what my hon. Friend said, that there are similar programmes in Exeter and Newcastle. She highlighted their centres of excellence. I hope that the Government will work closely with the charitable funders of dementia research and look to replicate those best practice examples. That is very important for improving healthcare, but that investment in research and development, particularly when it is targeted outside of London, can provide real benefits to places such as Nottingham.

Since the pandemic began, we have seen what can be achieved by our life sciences sector when it has the funding, the leadership and the clarity of purpose it needs. The huge advances we have seen in the last decade around dementia research—whether that is the creation of world-leading research institutions, such as the UK Dementia Research Institute, or the vast increase in the number of people attracted to the UK to do dementia research—have all come about because of increased targeted funding and a national strategy to bring together charities, academics and private investors. It is worrying that the state of the UK’s dementia research sector is now at risk. To be honest, it is deeply disappointing that the Government, two years on from their initial promise of a moonshot, have not yet brought forward the funding. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will set out a timetable for when that will be delivered and confirm that the new strategy will be ambitious about what can be achieved.

One point that really struck me when reading my hon. Friend’s report was the impact of the pandemic and the lack of secure funding on researchers. It is clear from the report and researchers’ testimonies that for many of them this is not just a job but a vocation. Not only are they passionate about science, but many also have a personal link to dementia. Their motivation is to find a cure or treatment, or to improve the lives of people living with dementia, but even before the effects of the pandemic, which shut down many labs and prevented people from properly carrying out their work, it is clear that there was a career bottleneck, causing many researchers to leave the field.

There is no shortage of talent among dementia researchers in the UK, but there is a leaky pipeline. New cohorts of doctoral students are often encouraged to enter dementia research without the funding in place to ensure that they can continue and progress into post-doctoral research. Will the Minister tell us what is being done in the upcoming strategy to address that pipeline—to ensure that our talented researchers do not have to move abroad to continue their work or, worse still, leave the field altogether? I know that the Government gave £20 million last year to support charity-funded researchers, but that is far from what was promised; they must do more.

How can we ensure that more people with dementia and their carers can participate in research? As part of the 2020 dementia challenge, the Government set out an ambition for 25% of people living with dementia to be registered with Join Dementia Research, which my hon. Friend mentioned. However, just 2% of people living with dementia in England have registered on the site, despite the policy being written into NHS commissioning guidance and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Attracting the world’s best researchers and private investment relies on us as a country being able to show that we can get the right number and right type of participants taking part in research, so what are the Government doing to encourage and enable that? Of course, it is about not just the benefit to the academic research, but the benefit to participants themselves; the report details how being involved in research can provide a sense of empowerment.

My final point today is about prevention. We simply are not doing enough to communicate to the public what every one of us can do to prevent dementia—reducing our risk by keeping ourselves healthy. One of the key slogans about brain health is “healthy heart, healthy brain.” Cardiovascular problems all increase the risk of memory loss, thinking problems and dementia, but it is never too late in life to reduce those risks.

There are 12 modifiable risk factors for dementia, including smoking, alcohol consumption, exposure to pollution and traumatic brain injury. Cutting out or reducing those risk factors can reduce the likelihood of developing dementia, but despite clear research in this area, Alzheimer’s Research UK’s 2018 dementia attitudes monitor showed that just 34% of people thought that they could reduce their risk of developing dementia—far behind the equivalent figures for conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which were 81% and 77% respectively. If people do not believe that they can do something about it, they will clearly not take the actions that they could. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to improve the health information provided to the public? Will that form part of the new national dementia strategy?

In conclusion, it is obvious that we have a wonderful, rich and diverse dementia research sector in the UK. We have passionate, dedicated academics who work tirelessly to improve the life of people with dementia, and of their families and carers. We have clearly come a long way. We have built terrific infrastructure, and have world-leading facilities, but just as dementia does not stop progressing, neither should we. We have to build on this, particularly given the impact that the pandemic has had on the field. We must offer opportunities and support to academics. If we do not, we are at risk of wasting all the great work done over the past decade. We must not allow that to happen, particularly when there are new, exciting developments that will drastically improve the life of people with dementia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, we have to provide hope. The Government must bring forward a plan for delivering the moonshot funding as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister giving us some hope when he responds.

15:30

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I join her in thanking the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing the debate, and for all her work as joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia.

It is real pleasure to contribute to the debate on dementia research in the UK. As the hon. Member for Nottingham South said, Dementia affects around 944,000 people in the UK, which is 1.33% of the population, and also takes them away from us, sometimes too early. It was the leading cause of death in December 2021, when dementia and Alzheimer’s accounted for 12.4% of all deaths. In 2021, when we were rightly fixated on covid and its impact, covid accounted for 5.4% of deaths. Frankly, we do not talk enough about dementia and what it does. Perhaps if we talked more about the impacts, people might join us in pressing for more change. As the hon. Member said, funding for research is relatively low. Cancer attracts three times as much, despite the statistics I have just given.

All that matters very much to me as MP for Bexhill and Battle, because there are 2,413 people in the constituency living with dementia. That is 2.34% of all my constituents. Of our 650 constituencies, mine has the second highest number of constituents living with dementia. I thank everyone, both in my constituency and across the country, who cares for those living with dementia, and I send my best wishes to all those who have dementia. I want to press for more, so that we get a better deal for those with dementia, and for those who are so selfless and give so much in looking after them, whether they are doing so through their employment or because the person they are looking after is a loved one.

On local interaction, I am very lucky, because we have built up a good deal of expertise through our links in East Sussex. My office team have been trained as dementia friends, thanks to the Alzheimer’s Society. That has helped me to engage a lot better with constituents who face personal challenges. When I was first elected in 2015, I went to a specialist dementia care home in Heathfield. We MPs do not get training for that type of thing—or for many other things—so I asked the matron running the unit, “How do I deal with it when something occurs?” Her advice was: “Just go into the same world as them. Don’t be embarrassed; just go there and be part of it.” I have remembered that advice and followed it ever since. We have ended up doing some very funny things, but I have never once felt silly; I felt as though I was engaging and having fun, and that has stayed with me.

I am really lucky with all our care homes and specialist units. I absolutely love to watch young children come from the schools to read to those in the care homes. Of course, some residents have difficulties with their short-term memory, but some of them have an extraordinary long-term memory. I remember one lady in Battle who did not contribute, but then stood up and recited, without a flaw, “I wandered lonely as a cloud”. It was an incredibly moving moment. The children were shocked, and I will always remember it.

Next week, I will visit a local charity, Young at Heart, where there is a lovely connection between young people from schools and preschools, and those who are older.

[John Nicolson]

I myself remember starting to dance with an old lady, and the dance was endless. It was one ballroom dance, then another, a third and a fourth. Finally, the care home attendant had to come and take me away, and he said, “She is a former professional dancer. She will dance with you all afternoon, unless we stop.” Is there a problem that people are scared of folk with dementia? Should we be teaching dementia awareness, which the hon. Gentleman raised, at schools?

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I feel that a lot of us are scared. Actually, a lot of hon. Members are perhaps scared that they are making a fool of themselves, but they are not. They are making their constituents happy that they are there with them. I have done something very similar to the hon. Gentleman. It is right to teach young people about dementia in schools and almost require every single school to have that partnership, to encourage young people to feel as if they can let go. It is an excellent suggestion. I hope the Minister heard it and will take it into account.

We are fortunate to have local pioneers. Mention has been made of ensuring that people get tested, because early intervention can help a great deal. A year or so ago, I visited a pioneering local memory assessment service based in Bexhill, which supports patients with dementia across both my constituency and the wider East Sussex coast. Dr Stephen French, who leads the memory assessment service, is a GP, which makes the service quite novel. I took part in a memory assessment test and went all the way through it myself, to see exactly what those who participate have to undertake and how difficult it is.

The service has been running for seven years and has proved successful with local residents. What is great about it is that it is a community-based dementia service, so anyone presenting with a memory problem will be seen by their local GP in the first instance. After they have gone through other causes of memory loss, such as depression or circulatory disease, they will be referred to a local dementia specialist for a full assessment, at a GP close to their home. So, they could be having that difficult test with their own GP. That means that those who are already worried about memory loss are able to go into setting with which they are more familiar. It is less intimidating than going to a hospital or mental health hospital, which is where such tests sometimes take place. Unsurprisingly, it means more people will take up the offer and attend the test. That is hugely important for a constituency such as mine, where there are so many people who are impacted.

When the test is positive, that comes as a great shock to both the individual and their family, but with this particular service, two weeks after diagnosis patients receive a visit from a local dementia support worker to see how they are getting on and to discuss the range of support services available to them. Then there is aftercare, followed up by a medical review to see how the patient is coping and to assess the effectiveness of any medication. Their pathway then comes back into their own GP service, so it becomes one of the conditions that they are being treated for.

As well as talking about research, which I will go on to mention, I feel that we have to encourage early diagnosis in a local setting, and we have to take away the stigma of it. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) around interacting. There is also a stigma about going to have the tests. I would encourage any colleague of mine to go and have the test, in the same way that I have. It is incredibly insightful.

Let me return to the main thrust of this debate, which is about research. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that this debate should be about hope. I agree with her that research will find that cure, and I agree with her that it is a case of “when”, not “if”, but I also agree with her that it requires continued funding of the amazing life science and research sector with which we are blessed in this country. I particularly note the UK Dementia Research Institute, which was set up in 2017. Its main hub is at University College London, but there are six other centres across the UK, funded by the Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. It will be doing the job to deliver the moonshot cure that the hon. Member talked about, but it will require a good chunk of the £5 billion committed in the 2021 spending review to go into research on dementia.

I am encouraged by the Government’s track record. In the five-year plan in 2015, the Challenge on Dementia, there was a commitment to spend £300 million by March 2020. In fact that amount was spent by March 2019, and it was £344 million. So the track record is there, but there were some bold pledges in my own 2019 manifesto on what we would do as a party to help deliver that cure for dementia. Let me say to the Minister—I know that he cares deeply about this issue—that if he needs any help at all in trying to strong-arm as much of that budget as possible towards dementia, he will always have a friend in me.

It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate. This is an issue that affects so many of my constituents—so many wonderful people who care or who suffer. I am delighted that we have secured the debate, and have raised the flag for them.

15:41

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing today’s debate and on her continued work on this issue, which I know is appreciated by many throughout the House and beyond. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman); I enjoyed listening to the stories of his visits.

Dementia has a lasting impact on those who develop it and on their loved ones. While the patient begins to develop symptoms, maybe slowly at first, it may be frightening—memory loss, a struggle to communicate, mood swings, and a change in personality for reasons the person does not understand. Over the course of our lives we get to know ourselves very well, and losing that sense of self is incredibly sad. The impact on carers and family members must not be underestimated either. Depending on the level of severity, caring for someone with dementia can be a full-time 24/7 job, and that can be exhausting. A common feeling among carers is guilt—guilt that perhaps they cannot keep up; guilt that sometimes they resent their newly found role. It is human nature to be hard on ourselves.

About 90,000 people in Scotland are currently living with dementia, and that number is expected to increase to at least 120,000 over the next 20 years. The condition is prevalent, and numbers are rising. It is estimated that in the UK one in three people born this year will develop a form of dementia later in life. In South Lanarkshire, where my constituency sits, dementia is the leading cause of death for women, accounting for 16.2% of female deaths. That is a sobering statistic. Globally, there are now more people living with dementia than with cancer, which is why research on treatment, or a cure, is so important. There is still no effective treatment. We can see how investment in research has allowed scientists to make unprecedented breakthroughs in respect of cancer, for example: sustained funding for cancer research allowed scientists to understand it better, turning what was, at one point, seen as a death sentence into a chronic but manageable disease. However, the human brain is complex, and that plays a big part in why dementia remains so poorly understood. Research has historically suffered from under-investment, and sustained investment is vital if breakthroughs are to be made.

Let me draw another comparison with cancer research. There have been 74,000 cancer-related clinical trials since 2000, but fewer than 2,400 for Alzheimer’s. In the same timeframe, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 512 cancer drugs, but just six drugs for Alzheimer’s. The UK Government’s funding for cancer is almost three times higher than that for dementia. The pressure on the NHS cannot be ignored. More than one in four hospital beds are occupied by someone with dementia, and more than half of dementia patients will have at least one hospital admission each year.

[Bob Stewart]

It was the story from my friend, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), about his mother that twigged something in my memory. The real problem seems to be that the will to live disappears. People look normal, but they are just vacant. As an ex-soldier, having seen this with soldiers, I know that the will to live is crucial. When someone gives up the will to live, they are gone. We have to find a way of making sure that dementia sufferers keep the will to live because if that is vacant, it is gone. I think that is true but others might disagree.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for that intervention and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his story about his lovely mother—a really sparkling lady, who I remember seeing pictures of. It is very sad when people give up the will to live.

One in five hospital admissions are for potentially preventable reasons, such as a fall, infection or psychiatric difficulties. It is not all bleak though. There have been developments and we understand the disease better now than we did just a few years ago. New research from University College London and the University of Paris, published in The BMJ in December, found that those with two or more chronic health problems in middle age are more than twice as likely to develop dementia. That research was based on a long-term clinical trial showing how progress can be made if the resources are available.

I would like to mention the Glasgow Brain Injury Research Group based in the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. The group looks at traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, and the impact that they have on patients exposed to varying levels of severity of injury. It is pursuing an interesting workstream on the link between repetitive mild TBIs, incurred through sport such as football and rugby, and the increased risk of dementia. We all know of many famous footballers who have died from dementia, such as the great Billy McNeill. This is a fantastic piece of work and one of the many different research areas that could really deepen our understanding of how dementia occurs and develops and of subsequent treatment methods.

The medical community remains hugely optimistic. A survey of researchers at the UK Dementia Research Institute found that 90% of them felt that new treatments would be found within the next decade, and 72% held the opinion that the pace at which breakthroughs are being made is increasing. Vitally, though, 100% pressed the need for additional funding to allow breakthroughs to be made. They are the experts and we should listen.

Developments are already under way, but the key now is maintaining and accelerating the existing momentum. We have heard of the Join dementia research resource, which is piloting actively writing to all people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. That would hugely benefit dementia research. In March 2021, Public Health Scotland revealed that less than half the people estimated to have had a new dementia diagnosis in 2018-19 were referred to vital post-diagnostic support. That outreach is essential. How will the Government support the JDR pilot and its roll-out across the four nations?

The lack of timely and accurate diagnosis is making it hard for current clinical trials to identify suitable candidates. The condition is severely underdiagnosed and the current backlog has only slowed things down even further. Transforming the current diagnostic process is pivotal. If diagnosis comes too late, we risk patients not being able to access treatments that might have helped to slow down its development.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up the UK, and I wonder whether that same attention could be given here. As part of the dementia strategy, the Government should invest in the development of multiple dementia clinical trial sites to form a network across the UK. Such a project would be in keeping with a true levelling-up agenda and make the UK an attractive centre for international life science investment. Better understanding of the disease leads to better support medically and emotionally. It will lessen the burdens on our frontline services. Early detection of the disease is crucial to allow patients to continue living independently and with dignity. That is one step that can be taken now. We need a stronger understanding among the general public about what to look out for and how to get help.

I wish to highlight the essential support provided by a number of charities for those with dementia and their support networks. They have also provided a wealth of knowledge to Members to support this debate, for which I am very grateful. Age Scotland, whose remit reaches much further, provides excellent support for older people in Scotland, as do Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer Scotland, among many others. Charitable funding has become harder to come by over the past two years, and the work of those organisations in the face of that is invaluable and impressive. Their working commitment is commendable. The UK is a leader in biomedical research. That is something to be proud of, and something we must harness. I look forward to the Minister setting out today how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, in asking me to attend today’s debate and talk about dementia, mentioned that they did not feel that dementia is a sexy enough subject to get the funding for research. It is almost as if it is expected that most of us, at the end of our lives, will not be as sharp tacks in the box as we once were, and may therefore find it hard to attract the funding. Does the hon. Lady agree with my constituent?

[Margaret Ferrier]

I do not agree that people with dementia have nothing else to give to society. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned, they have some great memory recall, and it can be good to work along with young people from schools. It is essential that we have funding to continue that work and research into dementia because as I said earlier, more and more of us may succumb to that terrible illness. I look forward to the Minister setting out how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy, and how the Government are supporting the development of essential new technologies in that space.

15:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate secured by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Indeed, I do not think she has secured any debate on dementia in either the Chamber or in Westminster Hall that I have not been at. That is first because I want to support her, but secondly because the subject matter is something that is real to me as a constituency MP, and to others who have told their stories in the Chamber. I find those stories incredibly moving because they illustrate, as personal stories always do, how complex this issue is. It is a pleasure to support the hon. Lady in this issue, which affects every corner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Strangford is a very beautiful location with wonderful facilities and lovely people. Given that, we have a high number of older retirees, who moved there to enjoy the safety of our constituency. The natural follow-on from that is that we have a large number of people who are susceptible to dementia. Over the years, when one is probably at around my age, one notices people who one remembers from childhood but who are now getting older and have developed dementia. I have quite a few friends in that position—I am not better than anybody else, but I can fairly quickly see where the issues are and one notices the slip away.

For instance, my mother had a lady living next door. One day she came in to see her and afterwards I said, “Mum, I think that lady is just starting to have a wee bit of dementia or Alzheimer’s.” She said, “Are you sure?” and I said, “I’m not smarter than anybody else, but I think there’s the start of something there”, and unfortunately there was. We know that drugs and medication can delay the process by five or six years, stopping the slide. As a busy constituency MP, I deliver on these issues all the time, whether it be attendance allowance forms, benefits issues or just helping people, as I do by the day, by the hour and by the minute. Recent figures and statistics show, and this is scary, that just under a fifth of all dementia diagnoses in Northern Ireland are of residents in the local trust in my Strangford constituency. As a busy MP with very busy staff who deal with these issues every day, every week and every month, I see these things.

Of course, we understand that dementia is not limited to individuals. We must remember that dementia affects entire families. The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned his mum, and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) told a very personal story about his mum, too. We can all relate, as it affects entire families—children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers.

Dementia takes people away from us while they are still alive. Those words sum up the debate very well, as that is the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s. People see the shell of their precious sister, who has forgotten her husband and who screams when he comes into the room, “Who is this man?” She does not recognise him, but they have been married for 35 or 40 years. She cannot express her toileting needs or say that she is simply lost, which is what these people are. That is the reality.

This is replicated widely throughout the UK. Life is simply harder, as taking the standard medication is a trial. It is little wonder that, currently, one in four NHS hospital beds is occupied by someone living with dementia.

[Bob Stewart]

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A friend of mine tells me that his wife suffers from dementia. She sometimes turns round to him and says, “Why are you sitting in my husband’s chair? Get out.” Isn’t that tragic?

[Jim Shannon]

That is exactly the kind of story we are all trying to illustrate with our words, or broken words, this afternoon. It is exactly what my constituents say to me.

The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from £24 billion in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. If that is the case, we really need research and development. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that we need it now.

I do not want to catch the Minister out, as that is not my nature, but the commitment in the 2019 Conservative manifesto has not yet been delivered. I am not getting at him, as he knows, but we need to have that commitment delivered. Dementia is increasing, and so must our response. We need funding for cures and coping mechanisms, which goes back to the commitment on research and development.

Asking people to play a game of sudoku on their phone each day is not a preventive strategy. We must put our money where our mouth is and find a way to answer the question of dementia. Way before covid arrived, I was invited to attend a dementia and Alzheimer’s help group at the Church of Ireland church in Newtownards. I learned a lot that day from speaking to family members, who told me that playing music sometimes seems to bring those with dementia or Alzheimer’s back to where they were. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire spoke about dancing, and I saw a lady dance—that is what she remembered. Music seems to bring people back, so it can be therapeutic.



There is one event I attended that I do not think I will ever forget. I know the people who run an Alzheimer’s and dementia home. They are very good to all their residents, who have different levels of dementia and Alzheimer’s and are at different stages. The trust were doing an event and they invited me as the MP and some of the local councillors down. They said, “We are going to try to illustrate to you what it’s like to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.”

Here is what they did: first, we put earphones on, which kept the noise around us but made a constant noise in our ears that was quite deafening and scary. They locked us in a room, in darkness, and they put a mask over our eyes so we could see nothing but darkness, which the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to. They put a sole in our shoe that had points in, so that every time we took a step it was like stepping on stones. We did that for 10 minutes, and it was probably the closest I ever came to being mad. That is how horrendously scary that experience was, and it left a lasting mark on me. That illustrates, from a personal point of view, what it means to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.

In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government committed to addressing dementia, pledging to double funding for dementia research to £160 million a year. However, I say gently to the Minister that two years in we have seen no plan to deliver that funding increase. I understand that there are reasons because of covid-19, but there are also reasons to deliver what was committed, which we all support, and we would all support the Government to make that happen.

The latest figures show a decrease in Government spending on dementia research. For the year 2020, funding for dementia research was £75.7 million, down £7 million from £82.5 in 2019 and £22.4 million down from its peak of £98.1 million in 2016. That tells me that we really need to do something. I know this Minister is a Minister of action, and I know that, when it comes to telling us what will happen, he will be able to tell us that that funding commitment will be addressed, so I look forward to his response.

I support the calls of Alzheimer’s Research UK. The rapid development of the covid-19 vaccines, a success story that we all welcome, tells us that, if we focus on something, we can do it. If we can do it, let us do it—and if we need the money that was committed to make that happen, let us do that as well. That is what we want to make happen. Alzheimer’s Research UK says:

“The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated the role the UK Government can play in bringing together different stakeholders to focus on a common challenge, and the impact this collective energy, funding and determination can have. In parallel to increased research funding, we need the approach taken to COVID vaccines to be applied to dementia—coordinated, ambitious action from government to bring together industry, health services and researchers”—

all those who want to help, including our Minister and the Government. It continues:

“This bold approach must be reflected in the forthcoming Department of Health and Social Care’s Dementia Strategy and will ultimately ensure UK patients have priority access to innovative new dementia treatments.”

Dementia is unfortunately a growing problem, and we must focus on it, not simply because it will be beneficial to our financials in the long term—it will—but because families are being torn apart by the pain of losing loved ones while they care for their shell. That is what is happening. It is like losing a piece of them week by week, and it hurts. It hurts all those families. It hurt the right hon. Member for Beckenham, it hurt the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and it hurt the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who lost her mum.

When I think of all those things, I believe we can do more to stop dementia, and funding for research is the way we must go. Again, I look to the Minister—to my Minister and to my Government—to make that manifesto commitment a reality, and sooner rather than later.

16:03

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I too commend the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate and for her excellent contributions to it.

We have heard that dementia affects around 850,000 people in the United Kingdom—one in every 14 people over the age of 65, and one in every six over the age of 80. Dementia is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom and currently, as we know, there is no cure. The most well-known impact of dementia on an individual is progressive memory loss, which affects both mental and physical abilities and makes it difficult to execute even the most basic of daily activities effectively and efficiently. When someone is diagnosed with dementia, it can be overwhelming, as they face several difficult challenges on the long road ahead.

We all know and have heard just how much dementia has affected many of our constituents and their loved ones during this awful pandemic. The House heard so lovingly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) about his plight and the plight of his wonderful mother Marion. I have spoken to those who care for family members across my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and they have expressed how much more difficult covid and the pandemic have made the experience, as the pandemic has presented its own new and unique challenges.

Not only does dementia cause harm and heartbreak to millions of families throughout the countries of the UK but it is completely unsustainable for our health and social care systems. The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from the £24 billion it was in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. Age is, of course, by far the biggest risk factor for a dementia diagnosis, and as our population ages the number of people diagnosed with dementia will increase. The number of people living with dementia in the UK is expected to exceed 1 million by 2025.

As we have heard, 90,000 people are currently living with dementia in homes all across Scotland. That is why the SNP Scottish Government published a dementia and covid-19 action plan in December 2020, to build on, continue and expand the national action taken since March 2020 to support people with dementia and their carers. The Scottish Government are working with partners such as Age Scotland to help dementia patients to get better support and have a bigger say in what works for them and in their individual care package.

The Scottish Government have pledged a further £1 million to help to tackle dementia in Scotland. Brian Sloan, the chief exec of Age Scotland, said:

“This funding will help address some of these challenges by shaping communities that work for those who have lived experience of dementia.”

That is a clear indication of the effectiveness of Scotland’s response. The Scottish Government have seen how the coronavirus pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on people with dementia. Through partnerships, they will help to grow the community support that has been considered critical to people and their families. I am of the belief that Scotland is also seeing positive results through our policy of integrated health and social care among health boards and local authorities. The Westminster Government should follow that lead.

Of course, Scotland is currently the only country in the United Kingdom with free personal care, which is extremely important support for people under the financial strains that dementia and living with dementia can place on families. People who are not in Scotland may wonder what that looks like: a dementia sufferer can receive up to four visits per day in their own home, where care is administered and the carer spends some time with them because, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, loneliness can be one of the biggest indicators that mean people simply give up. We must do everything we can to make sure that people live a fulfilling and wonderful life.

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Hear, hear!

[Steven Bonnar]

Thank you.

In 2017, the UK Government declared that the UK would be the most dementia- friendly country in the world by 2020. [Interruption.] The Minister nods his head, but unfortunately we know that that is not true: just look at the hundreds of dementia care homes in England that were discovered to be providing substandard care to their dementia patients.

A Care Quality Commission report found that one in every five homes specialising in dementia were rated as “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”. Some posed such a serious risk to people with dementia—because of filthy living conditions, poor infection control and poorly trained staff—that inspectors had to order them to be put into special measures. In total, 1,636 care homes are failing patients, according to findings described as “appalling” by charities and campaigners. They stated that immediate action was required to address the “unacceptable” state of dementia care across the country.

If we are to position the UK as the world leader in dementia—something we all want to see—we should not start by cutting the much-needed funding that was promised by the Government for dementia research. As we have heard, the 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed to address dementia by pledging to double funding for dementia research to more than £160 million per year. However, two years later and another broken promise later, we find ourselves in the same situation, with no plans from the Government to deliver on their manifesto pledge. The funding for dementia research for 2020 was £75.7 million—a decrease from £82.5 million in 2019 and from the high of £98.1 million in 2016.

What else do we need to say to persuade the Government to recognise the importance of funding dementia research in trials? Currently we have over 150 clinical trials worldwide examining potential dementia treatments. It is more pressing than ever that we can transform dementia diagnosis. We need early diagnosis of the diseases that cause dementia and we need to diagnose them more accurately; otherwise it will be too late for patients to benefit from potential new treatments. The Government should invest now in infrastructure, resources and the clinical workforce to build diagnostic capacity and support innovative ways of organising NHS services such as brain health clinics to offer new diagnostic pathways. I look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government intend to achieve that.

The Scottish Government have proven our commitment to dementia research with a one-off £75 million increase in funding for our universities to ensure that they can protect world-leading research programmes against the financial impacts of covid-19. That is exactly how we protect those we care about and those who care for us. The current prevalence rate of dementia among older people in the UK is about 7.1%, and of the four countries Scotland has the lowest prevalence rate, with England having the highest overall prevalence rate. With the growing trend and threat of dementia to our citizens, it is now time for this Government to act and to outline a proper plan to help combat the threat of dementia across these nations, with the goal of preventing people from developing the onset of dementia.

The UK Government can follow in the footsteps of Scotland and become the world leader in dementia research they told us they would be, but to do so they must deliver on their manifesto commitments to double the funding for dementia research, speed up progress in clinical trials, and ultimately—maybe only by the grace of God—help us to find the cure. We cannot allow any more time or opportunities to pass by as we seek to support those living with and at risk of dementia.

16:12

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this vital debate, and for the work that she does as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for the debate. What it lacked in quantity of Members, given that it is the last debate before the recess, it certainly did not lack in quality.

I think there is unanimity on recognising the value of dementia research and on willing the Government to do more. That degree of unanimity is unusual in such an adversarial Chamber as the House of Commons, but we have had a good debate today. I pay tribute not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth but to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar).

Dementia is the only condition out of the 10 conditions with the highest mortality rates for which there is no treatment to prevent, cure or slow its progression. Almost 1 million people are currently living with dementia. Every three minutes, someone develops the condition. As we heard very powerfully from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), it affects not just the individual but those around them—their family and friends. Dementia is also severely underdiagnosed, and that has been further exacerbated by covid-19. There is a backlog of approximately 35,000 people aged 65 and over waiting for dementia diagnoses. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response, could outline the specific measures that the Government will take to improve early detection of dementia. I also pay tribute to the many charities working on dementia, to the individuals working in research and, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham rightly did, to those caring for people with dementia—not just the professional carers, but the massive army of often family carers looking after their loved ones.

Unless we find a prevention or cure for the disease that causes dementia, the number of people in the UK living with the condition is likely to reach 2 million by 2050—a shocking statistic. As we have heard, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the leading cause of death in 2021. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said, in 2021, we were in the middle of the covid pandemic and rightly focused on the tragic deaths of people from covid-19-related illnesses, but dementia and Alzheimer’s topped the league table. Indeed, in 2019, 15.9% of all recorded female deaths were due to the condition. This is big, and I know that the Minister understands the severity. Those shocking statistics mean that dementia has consistently, for whatever reason, over a long period of time, suffered from under-investment in research.

Great work is being done in my constituency of Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, as it is across the United Kingdom. I pay particular thanks to those working in Tameside and Stockport memory services, who give the initial dementia diagnosis, provide individuals with initiating and monitoring medication, and connect them to support groups in their community. That kind of holistic approach to dementia care is crucial.

Dementia can be cured only with research, however, which is why I am also proud of the work that the Greater Manchester dementia research centre is doing in this field. The centre aims to connect people living with dementia to cutting-edge studies and to the National Institute for Health Research. The centre works across the UK through the UK Brain Health Network, which has researchers in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Cambridge, Oxford, Cardiff and Belfast, and which aims to bring molecular diagnostics into routine practice throughout the country.

Alongside the wider Greater Manchester “Dementia United” strategy, that innovative work gives my constituents who suffer from dementia the research, support and clarity that they deserve. It is just one example of the really good work taking place across the country. We need world-class research to achieve the best quality of life for people and families living with dementia.

The Minister is perhaps one of the nicest people I have to face—other than you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know that he genuinely wants to do the right thing, which is good. He knows, however, as has been referred to on numerous occasions, that his Government’s 2019 election manifesto promised to pour £1.6 billion into dementia research over the next decade as part of the so-called dementia moonshot. There has been huge unanimity in the debate that we want to see that happen. That was a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South. Over two years on from the general election, we have seen no plans to deliver that funding increase. The latest figures show there has actually been a decrease in Government spending on dementia research, with funding down by over £20 million since 2016. It has gone down by £7.2 million per year under this Prime Minister. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that in his response the Minister will address how on earth that has been allowed to happen.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in Government funding is particularly concerning, because the pandemic has had a devastating impact on the ability of charities to fundraise? Medical research charities, which fund 51% of all medical research in the UK, have seen their ability to fundraise reduced drastically.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. There has been a perfect storm. As we have heard, there is a growing list of people waiting to be diagnosed properly with dementia as a consequence of the covid pandemic, and, as she rightly says, the very research groups doing in-depth analysis and research into this disease are largely reliant on charitable sources of funding, which have almost completely dried up over the course of the pandemic.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I was going to mention this when I wind up, but I could not agree more. Funds to medical research charities, such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, have more or less halved—an awful impact.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. This is a crucial point and it is why the Government really must come good on their promises.

I also hope the Minister will update the House and give us a timetable for the publication of the dementia strategy. Patients living with dementia, and their loved ones, cannot wait for the Government to get their act together. We need a plan and we need it to go much faster to develop treatments to change lives. The Government must deliver now on their 2019 dementia moonshot manifesto promise to double Government funding into dementia research. No more excuses: that promise needs to be kept. As we have heard, funding is needed now more than ever in a research landscape that has been decimated by covid. Not only have charitable donations dried up, but a survey from Alzheimer’s Research UK found that more than a third of dementia researchers were considering leaving, or had left, academic research due to uncertainty around funding opportunities.

I want to raise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) in an intervention on the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. She rightly made the point that too often these research projects are not necessarily seen as sexy. We have to make sure that that is not the case, because as I have said, they are so crucial. Labour is committed to doubling dementia research spending to over £160 million a year and to playing our part in finding a cure for this cruellest of diseases. That is a part of our commitment to not only protect but enhance the UK science base and achieve 3% of GDP spending on science and research across the economy.

Patients and their families must be a priority. That starts with dementia research, improved early diagnosis and world class clinical trials. Our goal must be to prevent, treat and ultimately cure this complex and often heartbreaking condition. That is why Labour’s suggestion of a 10-year plan of investment and reform for older and disabled people, including those with dementia, is so important. It would ensure that more people could access care and live in their homes for longer, while being supported by carers paid a proper living wage of £10 an hour.

British people deserve better. We need to meet the challenges of this century of ageing. We need to learn from the pandemic, because there are so many lessons that we can put into ordinary life. We need to treat those who are diagnosed with dementia with the respect that they deserve. This is not a party political point; there is unanimity across this House of Commons. We must redouble our efforts on research for dementia to improve care and support and, ultimately, to find a cure for this dreadful disease.

16:25

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

In response to one of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I would not take away from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has the Adjournment debate, the honour of having the last debate before the House rises. The shadow Minister is absolutely right about the importance of the subject we are debating, and I am grateful to him, as always, for his tone and what he has said. I find myself in agreement with him perhaps more often than is good for my promotion prospects; that is one for the Whips not to note in their book.

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this hugely important debate. Before I was a Minister, I had the privilege of working with her and the all-party group as one of her co-chairs. I pay tribute to her for her work and her dedication to this issue, which is one of the most important that we will debate in this House, and to the work of the all-party group and the various charities that engage with it so diligently and give so much of their time.

I hope the hon. Lady will find it encouraging that even though this policy area falls within the ministerial portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health—I am, therefore, taking this debate on her behalf—I still read the reports and calls for evidence that the all-party group puts out. I will turn to the dementia moonshot in a moment, but I particularly remember the report from, I think, September last year with its overall recommendation and seven subsequent recommendations. I hope it reassures the hon. Lady to know that I continue to follow very closely the important work that she and the all-party group do. I hope that she will pass on to the all-party group, and the Members of this House who serve on it, my gratitude for their work.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, and indeed all hon. Members who have spoken, have highlighted in different ways either personal or constituency experience, or the work of organisations in their constituencies. As a Minister, I do not often get the opportunity to pay tribute to particular organisations in my constituency, unless I can somehow work them into debates that I am responding to. I join Members in highlighting a number of them, including the memory café, which I have visited, in Syston in my constituency. I had the privilege of visiting, pre pandemic, the Cedar Mews care home, which specialises in providing care for people with dementia, and working with local Dementia UK members in their campaign to raise the funding to secure an Admiral nurse to help people with dementia and their families in Leicestershire. We are all very familiar with Macmillan nurses, and it is important that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Admiral nurses in this context and raise their profile.

The hon. Lady will know that, like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am a dementia friend from my days on the all-party group. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members who have not engaged with that process to do so. It involves undertaking an incredibly thought-provoking and valuable session, which will make hon. and right hon. Members look at these issues in a different light, however well informed they think they are. I commend that programme.

This debate on dementia research is very timely, since the Government are currently developing their new dementia strategy, as has been mentioned. The new strategy will set out our plans for dementia for future years, and it includes our ambitions for dementia research. We are working closely with patients, researchers, funders and charities to develop these plans, and we look forward to setting out—I think the shadow Minister and other hon. and right hon. Members called for this—a bold approach to the challenges of dementia.

The central recommendation in the APPG report on dementia—it has been mentioned by a number of hon. and right hon. Members—was for the Government to deliver on the election manifesto pledge on dementia research, but I know that they entirely understand the impact of the pandemic. The SNP Government in Scotland, for perfectly good reasons, have had to break their pledge to deliver a fourth dementia strategy from 2020, following their highly successful third dementia strategy because they were unable to consult and develop their plans and had to prioritise dealing with the pandemic. For exactly the same reasons, the pandemic has had the same impact on the UK Government’s focus and on the funding, which we had to put into covid over that period.

I will turn to the manifesto pledge in a minute, but I know—I may get the pronunciation wrong—that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) is a reasonable and sensible gentleman. My comments may not do him any favours with his Whips, but I know he will appreciate the impact that dealing with the pandemic had on the ability of the UK Government, and indeed the devolved Administrations, to implement their ambitious plans at the time they wanted to. However, that does not take away from the commitment of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government, now that the pandemic has receded, to get on with delivering what I know we all want to see, and I think that is a shared ambition.

I can reassure the House that we remain absolutely committed to supporting research into dementia. The funding pledge that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish highlighted in his remarks was in the 2019 manifesto, but of course we still have some time in this Parliament to run—I believe—and it is a longer-term pledge. There is still an opportunity to deliver on that and the Government still recognise the importance of that commitment. I will turn to funding in a moment and pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).

The impact of the pandemic has been significant, and of course people with dementia, and their families and carers, have been very hard hit by its effects and by the necessary measures to combat it. I do not think anyone could have put it more effectively and more movingly than the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) who, in order to help our understanding, shared with the House—I know it will have been difficult—and therefore with the country, his experiences and those of his mother Marion. I pay huge tribute to him for his courage and bravery in talking about something that I know will still be very painful. From what he and Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), said at the time, I know how close he was to his mother. Sadly, I never met Marion, but I get the impression that she was a wonderful and amazing lady. I pay tribute to him for his courage.

[John Nicolson]

Thank you.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I think he speaks for thousands across this country who will have had a similar experience during the course of the pandemic. We must never forget every one of the people lost during this pandemic, whatever medical reason caused that, and we must never forget the families and carers of those with dementia.

As we have heard from hon. and right hon. Members—the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about her mother, as did the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place—the challenge and the impact of dementia are huge. Dementia is a heartbreaking condition that, sadly, impacts many of us, or will do, either directly or through family and friends. More than 850,000 people in the UK have dementia, and they are supported by a similar number of carers, many of whom are older people themselves, and we must never forget the debt we owe to each and every one of them. Of course, in a sense they do not see it as our owing them a debt. They do it out of love for their relatives and their friends, and that possibly even adds to the gratitude that we as a country should show them in recognition of what they do.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Office for National Statistics data on deaths due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2019, and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made a very important point. In common parlance and commentary, people talk about Alzheimer’s as dementia and dementia as a single disease, but she is right to talk about dementia as an overarching term for a variety of diseases. I will return to education and awareness-raising. ONS statistics show that in 2019 deaths attributed to dementia decreased for the first time since 2009, but they remained the leading cause of death, accounting for 12.5% of all registered deaths in that year.

On the point that I was making to the hon. Lady, there are three key elements that we as a society and as a country need to look at. First, we need to raise people’s awareness and understanding of dementia. We want to have a society in which we all think and feel differently about dementia; one where there is less fear, stigma and discrimination and more understanding. While many thousands of people have dementia, we must not see it as an inevitable part of ageing. I will return to that.

In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen a breaking down of the taboo and unwillingness to speak about cancer, for example. As a society and as individuals, we talk much more in our national and individual discourse about cancer and what we can do to help prevent it, to treat it, and to make people feel less alone when they have a cancer diagnosis. We have made progress on dementia, but we still have a long way to go to raise that awareness and have that national debate. All hon. Members play a huge role in stimulating that debate, and today’s debate has helped to do that.

To return to the heart of the matter, perhaps one reason why people do not engage with it or talk about it—they may feel frightened—is that although with cancer we know that there are diagnostic tests and that every day we are making new discoveries that help increase the opportunity to find a cure and treat it or so that people can live longer and well with it, we are not there yet with dementia. I suspect that there is an element of people thinking, “Well, if I get the answer and nothing really can be done, do I want to know?” The short answer is that it is always better to know, because that allows the person to plan and have those conversations. Through knowing, they can also help advance that research. However, I understand the entirely human reaction of people thinking, “Maybe I’d prefer not to know.” We need to continue that conversation.

The second hugely important aspect is support and care for people with dementia and for those who care for them. While we seek to improve prevention and diagnosis as well as seeking that cure, we need to ensure that those living with dementia and those who are supporting them feel that they in turn are supported. We are determined to support those living with dementia to live the fullest possible life for as long as possible and to support those who care for them.

Alongside that, the third element—in a sense, this is the crux of some of the speeches and the debate—is research into testing and diagnosis. While it is not often the case, I think that hon. Members in the Chamber are as one in seeking one goal: the day we find a cure for dementia—or, at the very least, something that can delay it or treat it.

While we wait for that day, it is important to recognise the point made about prevention by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). There is much that we do know about how people can help reduce their risk of dementia through lifestyle factors and a range of other things. They may not be exclusive, but there is an opportunity for people to take simple steps that help prevent or reduce the risk of getting dementia. We need to do more to spread that message and raise awareness of that in our society. I am grateful to her for making that point, because we want to reduce the number of preventable dementia cases.

I will return to other points subsequently, but let me turn to research and the moonshot that has been mentioned. The new dementia strategy will set out our plans to tackle dementia over the coming years. I try not to be partisan, so I pay tribute to the Scottish Government’s 2017 to 2020 dementia care strategy—I think it was their third—as well as the two related workforce programmes and a range of other measures. We can always learn from each other and best practice in different parts of our Union, and we should certainly be willing to do that in a space such as this. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has kindly invited me to Edinburgh to see a range of things that she wishes to showcase to me. I hope that I will be able to take her up on that offer and also see my opposite number in Scotland, Secretary Humza Yousaf.

Hon. Members raised a question about the devolved Administrations and working together. I think the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the joint dementia research work. We are working with the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Alzheimer Scotland. We are jointly funding that work to ensure that, notwithstanding other contexts in this House where we may have debates about our Union, we are genuinely working together to deliver a positive outcome.

Increasing research spend takes time. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the impact that the past two years have had on the spending prioritisation, as we have had to focus to meet the immediacy of the covid situation. However, we have committed to invest at least £375 million in neurodegenerative disease research over the next five years. To the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we are working across Government to finalise outcomes from the spending review and to identify ways to significantly boost research on dementia.

With that in mind, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, who says that in this context, I will always have a friend in him. I always find that I do have a friend in him; I have known him for a long time. Without straying into territory more properly reserved to the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, let me say that there is a joint ambition across Government to continue to drive this agenda forward. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, and watching his work as Chair of the Transport Committee, I suspect that he will not hold back in expressing his views on matters such as this, about which he is passionate.

The £5 billion investment in health-related research and development announced in the 2021 spending review reflects the Government’s broader commitment to support research into the most pressing health challenges of our time, including dementia. A number of specific points have been raised by the APPG and other Members. I will touch on as many as I can in the time available, but seek to leave five minutes for the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I suspect she will want to come back on some of these points, given her work.

I turn to prevention, including what the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will do to help reduce people’s risk of developing dementia. The APPG report recommended that the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities launch public information campaigns on dementia risk reduction. OHID is involved in the development of the new dementia strategy, which will include proposals on prevention and risk reduction. The concept of brain health as part of encouraging people to reduce their dementia risk—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—is being actively explored. OHID has been working with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK to review public facing materials aimed at raising public awareness of dementia risk reduction.

I should take this opportunity—I fear I omitted to do so in my opening remarks—to pay tribute to Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and the myriad local charities and groups that are working so hard to drive forward this agenda, and to support people with dementia and their families, as well as the research space. I add my tribute to that of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the Greater Manchester research centre. Sadly it does not fall within my portfolio, but he and I might be dextrous in finding a reason within my portfolio that allows me to go and visit it with him jointly, which we would both enjoy.

More than 15 million people aged between 40 and 74 are eligible for an NHS health check in England, and during such a check, individuals are made aware that exercise, healthy weight, healthy diet and reduced alcohol consumption help maintain a healthy brain, and we need to continue to emphasise that message and the support that is out there through those health checks. I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth who touched on early diagnosis—it is not just about focusing on research for a cure, but on diagnosis. Timely diagnosis of dementia, as with so many other diseases, plays a hugely important part in ensuring that a person with dementia can access the advice, information, care and support that can help them plan and to live well with the condition and remain independent for as long as possible.

Everyone with dementia should have meaningful care following diagnosis, including information on local services, access to relevant advice and support and what happens next. Carers should be made aware of and offered the opportunity for the respite and support they need. DHSC guidance is already available, titled “After diagnosis of dementia: what to expect from health and care services”. When we set out our dementia strategy, diagnosis will be a key element of that.

Medical research charities have come up in this context, too, because it is not just about the big institutions—small institutions, academic institutions and charities are all playing their part in this space. I agree with Members in the analogy they drew with the vaccines and what can be achieved and what was achieved when there is an imperative to do it. I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister. When we put our minds to doing something as a society and a country, there are often no limits to what we can achieve, as we have seen. We must put the same focus on this issue.

We recognise that the pandemic has caused problems across the sector and that many charities are facing difficulties just as their services are needed most. Medical research charities are a vital part of our life sciences ecosystem, and they provide significant research funding and training. Importantly, they amplify the voices of patients and their families in that process. Officials at the Department have been closely liaising with the medical research charities to better understand the impact of the pandemic on them and to seek to identify how we can work together to support their research and them. In that context, just one example is that my Department, alongside the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has announced a £20 million support package to help support early career researchers funded by charities. That will protect that pipeline of talent coming through the research system, to which Members have referred.

We have a rich dementia research ecosystem and we need to continue to support it. Through the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists have made huge leaps in understanding the mechanisms underlying disease progression, and researchers have developed potential new diagnostics and treatments. It is painstaking work. The hon. Lady will remember when the focus was very much on amyloids, and whether that would produce a route to that cure. Often with research it is one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back, so the sustainability of investment and focus is vital if we are to make the breakthrough that we all wish to see.

Dementias Platform UK has established technology-based networks to better understand how dementia starts and to support experimental medicine studies. As the APPG report recognises, in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, people with dementia and their carers continue to be recruited via Join Dementia Research to take part in a range of important research.

Through our National Institute for Health Research, we are supporting high-quality studies on preventing dementia through interventions targeted at known risk factors, service provision, care and care technology. There are many examples, but to give one, the “Well-being and Health for People Living with Dementia”, or WHELD programme developed an intervention to improve wellbeing for people with dementia in care homes and to reduce unnecessary prescribing of anti-psychotic drugs. In the 2021 spending review, as I have alluded to, we announced that £5 billion investment in health-related research and development. That reflects our commitment to support research, including in dementia.

We have taken positive action over the past year, notwithstanding the pandemic, to lay the ground for further developments and further research. Within the National Institute for Health Research, we launched a new £9 million call inviting research proposals on the early detection of dementia using digital technology. We launched a £3.6 million research for social care call to address important social care questions relating to dementia. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has taken a close interest in that, both in her previous shadow ministerial role and on the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and I think that the APPG has called for evidence on social care impacts. We launched a highlight notice on dementia that invites ambitious dementia research applications; it signals to the community that dementia is a priority area for the NIHR.

As we work across Government to finalise the outcomes of the spending review and look towards the spring, the House, the Government and the country need to retain a focus on this issue, which is one of the most testing challenges we face as a society. We are living longer, which is a great testament to advances in medical science and in its ability to fix our bodies and keep them going for longer. The ability to understand, repair and treat our brains has perhaps not moved forward at the same pace, so we are living longer with dementia. That is, in a sense, positive, but it presents challenges for society, and it is why we must retain a focus on dementia.

We need to continue to build on our successes in order to accelerate the progress on dementia research, but we cannot do that alone. We will continue to work on this across Government, and with charities and the research community. By and large, we share the objectives of the shadow Minister and his colleagues. We may disagree from time to time on how to get there, but I suspect that we have, and will retain, a common objective. Crucially, we must work with people with dementia and their families to bring forward our ambitious plans for our new dementia strategy.

It has been a great privilege and pleasure to wind up such an important debate, and to speak on a topic that is not in my ministerial portfolio, but in which I have taken such a close interest over the years. We owe it to our constituents and future generations to rise to meet the challenges of our ageing society and of dementia. We must redouble our efforts to do that; when we do, I believe that our society and our country will meet the challenge of dementia and find the cure that we all seek.

16:52

[Debbie Abrahams]

Let me start with some thank-yous. I thank all the speakers who contributed to today’s debate on dementia research, which is absolutely essential for the reasons that many of us have discussed. I am very grateful to every Member who shared their personal stories and experiences.

This is not something that will go away. We will see an increase in people with dementia, but it does not need to be that way. Before I go on to what we need to do and comment on the Minister’s winding-up speech, I pay tribute to my constituency, where we have 3,000 dementia friends. I was the first MP to train as a dementia friends champion; I deliver sessions on the subject across my constituency, and our youth council has taken part in this, too. It is an important way that we can drive up awareness, because so many people have personal experience of the effects of living with dementia. We have an annual memory walk, and many of our retailers have undertaken training, so that when someone gets to a checkout but does not know what they are there for, or what money they need to pay for the goods, there is understanding, rather than tut-tutting.

I worked hard with the Minister over a number of years when he was co-chair of the APPG. There is absolutely unanimity here—my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to it. Members on both sides of the House need to do more. Unfortunately, what has happened so far is not enough. We need to ask the Government to stump up for the commitments that they made in the 2019 general election.

The money that has gone on neurodegenerative diseases research covers a much broader spectrum of diseases than those that contribute specifically to dementia. The early career researchers fund covers all diseases, not just those specifically focusing on dementia. The families of people with dementia deserve better. They deserve delivery on a promise that was made to them more than two years ago. The impact that dementia is having on people’s lives cannot be underestimated.

There is a lot more that can be done. We can have screening programmes, like those that we have for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancers, for people in their early 20s and 30s. Diagnostic tools have been developed to enable diagnosis to happen sooner, rather than later, so that dementia does not have an impact on people as they grow older and it is picked up early. It is not good enough for the Government to say, “This is what we are doing.” They really need to deliver.

I hope the Minister will take this message back to the Treasury, so that there is an announcement in the spring statement. I know the Minister is personally committed to this issue, but the Government need to back him up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As the Minister said, this has been a significant debate on the last day before the week’s recess. I have been an MP for 30 years and I remember that one of my first surgery cases was a lady who came to see me. Her husband had a very senior position and was well respected throughout the community but he had succumbed to the cruelty of dementia. She broke down in tears as she told me how she had had to put post-it notes all around their home in order for him to know where the cups were and things like that. My eyes welled up listening to her story. It is such a cruel condition, and we wish everybody working in dementia research in the UK and throughout the world well in order that they can protect lives in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.

Ambulance Services in England

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

16:57

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), in his place. He and I have debated many issues on health and social care over the last couple of years, and ambulance services have perhaps not had the attention that we would have liked. I know the Minister has had an extremely busy week, possibly because of the new trend for Ministers having multiple jobs, so I am grateful that he is here to deal with the points that will be raised.

It is an important and timely debate. We are regularly seeing images of long delays, with ambulances stacking up outside hospitals for long periods of time. Those images demonstrate wider difficulties throughout the whole system, but on an individual level they mean that patients are not getting the care they need as quickly as they should. The blame for that does not lie with the staff—the paramedics, the first responders and the call handlers—all of whom do a magnificent job in very demanding circumstances. We say thank you for their service, not just in the last couple of years but throughout their time in the NHS.

Despite their efforts, we are in a crisis. Last week ambulance waiting figures outside hospitals reached their highest level in five years. The latest NHS figures show that record numbers of patients in England—over 150,000 of them—have waited in the back of an ambulance for at least half an hour so far this winter, because emergency departments are too busy to admit them. That is the equivalent of one in every five patients—that is the scale of the challenge that we are facing. Those figures sound extraordinary because they are. They are 14% higher than the previous highest total for the number of patients forced to wait during the same period, with the previous high being in the winter of 2019-20.

As awful as those headline figures sound, the figures for the number of ambulances waiting more than 60 minutes are even worse: they are up 82% compared with the last two winters. These are exceptional and concerning statistics.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

[Justin Madders]

In my constituency, the British Heart Foundation has told me that it is concerned about reports from the North West Ambulance Service that patient flow in and out of emergency departments is currently very slow, with ambulances being held for long periods, which has the knock-on effect, of course, of causing higher category 1 and category 2 stacks. Worryingly, we have heard reports of delays of up to four hours in these queues.

I am sure these figures, as shocking as they are, will not surprise hon. Members who, like me, have probably had many emails of concern and complaint from worried constituents. Behind these statistics are tens of thousands of seriously unwell people in dire need of help. As the chief executive of the Patients Association said:

“Going to A&E can be frightening. To then be stuck in an ambulance unable to get immediate medical help once you get there must add to the trauma of an emergency visit.”

I think we can all understand where they are coming from. The Royal College of Nursing’s director for England also points out:

“Having to wait outside in an ambulance because A&E is already dangerously overcrowded is distressing, not just for patients but also for staff, who can’t provide proper care.”

It must be so frustrating for those staff, knowing there are other urgent calls they could be going to, that they cannot leave their current patient because the hospital is already at capacity.

I agree with those comments. Not only does having an ambulance stuck outside A&E as it waits to offload a patient mean that it is unable to answer 999 calls, which leads to slower response times, but it means we lose ambulance hours. We lost 8,133 ambulance hours in the last week of January due to crews having to wait outside busy A&Es. That is an incredible statistic.

As NHS Providers points out:

“safety risk is being borne increasingly by ambulance services.”

We know that people are dying in the back of ambulances or soon after their admission to hospital because of these long waits. We heard from ambulance chiefs in November that 160,000 patients come to harm each year because ambulances are backed up outside hospitals.

The shocking report from the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, which is based on NHS figures, did not report how many patients die each year because of ambulances stuck outside hospitals, but it did say:

“We know that some patients have sadly died whilst waiting outside ED”—

emergency departments—

“or shortly after eventual admission to ED following a wait. Others have died while waiting for an ambulance response in the community.”

The report acknowledges that, whether or not those deaths were inevitable

“this is not the level of care or experience we would wish for anyone in their last moments.”

The report also highlights that around 12,000 patients suffered serious harm because of delays, sometimes with a risk of permanent disability. In the same month, more than 40,000 people in England who called 999 with a category 2 condition such as a stroke or heart attack waited more than one hour and 40 minutes for an ambulance. Of course, the NHS target is to reach them within 18 minutes.

Just last week, NHS figures revealed that thousands of people are dying because ambulances are taking too long to answer emergency calls. The official statistics show that only three of England’s 32 ambulance services are reaching a majority of immediately life threatening call-outs within eight minutes. In fact, the latest available NHS England data for December 2021 shows that the average ambulance response time for category 2 emergencies —suspected heart attack and stroke patients—is 53 minutes and 21 seconds: three times the 18-minute target. Those are incredibly worrying figures.

The British Heart Foundation also reports that there were 5,800 excess deaths from heart and circulatory diseases in England during the first year of the pandemic alone. Although it acknowledges that these excess deaths were driven by a multitude of factors across the entire patient pathway, it also says it is very plausible that some of the deaths could have been prevented if these people had been able to access urgent and emergency care in a timely manner. If we are to avoid more preventable deaths and disability from heart conditions, it is vital that the most critically ill patients can access the care that they need when they need it.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to say what action has been taken to address the dangerous impact on emergency heart attack and stroke care and the victims whose lives are being put at risk, what conclusions the Department has reached as to why so many trusts are failing to reach the targets that have been set for them, and what steps are being taken to reduce waiting times for responses to 999 call-outs and ambulance waits. We know that these delays matter. If 90% of 999 calls were answered in time, 3,000 more heart attack victims could be saved each year.

I have reeled off a lot of statistics. Now I want to give a couple of constituency examples to show what this means for people who have experienced long waits. Thankfully neither case ended in tragedy, but these were clearly difficult and distressing times for those involved.

One constituent told me that she had waited more than 10 hours for an ambulance, having first called 111 at about 10.15 am, when she was advised to call 999. When she called 999, it took a few minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler confirmed that an ambulance would be coming, before asking if it was OK for her to hang up and go on to the next call. About an hour later, having seen no sign of the ambulance, my constituent called 111 again and was told to call 999, but was then told that the ambulance waiting time was about eight hours. At 2.30 pm she was forced to call 999 again, as her husband’s condition was becoming noticeably worse. By that stage he could not move or talk because he was in so much pain. The call handler took the details again, but advised my constituent only to call if the condition worsened further.

Another three hours passed, with my constituent’s husband in absolute agony. When she decided to call again at 5.30 pm, she waited more than five minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler asked if the patient was breathing, and said that an ambulance could only be sent if a patient was not breathing, as it was a busy day, although he did also confirm that the request for an ambulance had been prioritised after her call at 2.30 pm—which, by that stage, was three hours earlier.

The ambulance eventually arrived at 8.45 pm, 10 and a half hours after the initial call. Unsurprisingly, my constituent told me that the paramedics were lovely and could see immediately that her husband needed to go to hospital. When he arrived there, he was scanned and treated, and operated on within 24 hours. It was clear that he needed urgent medical treatment; in fact, he probably needed more treatment than he would have needed had he been seen at the right time. However, in the long run, no serious harm has come to him.

That is just one example of a person who waited longer than they should have. It was not an isolated incident; we know that this is happening week in, week out throughout the country. Another constituent told me that he called an ambulance after his wife collapsed at home. They are both pensioners. My constituent called 999 at 11.45 am, and was told that an ambulance would not be able to attend for at least nine hours. He cancelled the call.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of Bina Patel, which has received considerable media coverage, and has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Anyone who has heard the calls that were made requesting an ambulance, and the clearly urgent nature of those calls, cannot fail to be concerned about what is happening in our ambulance services. As I have tried to emphasise, these are not one-off incidents; they are part of a wider pattern, and symptomatic of a system unable to cope with the demands placed on it.

Targets are not being met and people are being put at risk or worse, but NHS England’s response is a proposed new standard contract which contains a “watering down” of several waiting-time targets, with standards lower than those that were in place before the pandemic. The proposals include scrapping the “zero tolerance” 30-minute standard for delays in handover from ambulance to A&E and setting it at 60 minutes, and introducing the additional targets that 95% of handovers must take place within 30 minutes and 65% within 15 minutes. I do wonder how performance can be improved if targets are loosened. The pandemic should not be used as a cover for this, as performance across the system was getting worse before the pandemic. Indeed, it is nearly seven years since the normal targets were met. By scrapping standards for delays in handover, the Government are trying to normalise those longer waiting times. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) asked the Secretary of State earlier this month whether he really thought it should take an hour just to be transferred from an ambulance into a hospital. It should not take that long. Does anyone really think it is acceptable for people ringing 999 to be told they must make their own way to hospital?

I am sure the Minister is aware of reports in the Health Service Journal last month that several trusts, most notably the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, advised people calling 999 with symptoms of a heart attack or stroke to take a taxi or a lift with family or friends rather than waiting for an ambulance. I am sure the Minister will want to comment that that is not what we want to be hearing from our ambulance services.

The British Heart Foundation told me that it recently reviewed two calls to its heart helpline that highlighted instances where patients with suspected heart attacks called 999 and paramedics did attend, but then asked both to have their family drive them to hospital for further tests because the ambulance services in their area were under so much pressure. Neither person actually went to A&E, which is most unfortunate: one did not want to bother their family and the other thought that, if the ambulance was not taking them, their situation must not be urgent enough, which of course was not the case.

In short, those two patients did not access the care they needed because of the message being sent out about the burden they were placing on the system. That is completely wrong and certainly not the message we should be giving people who are clearly in urgent need of treatment.

A recovery plan has been announced this week, which, if we are honest, does not really address the issues of the wider NHS and social care pressures. It does not have any real plan for this particular area. The recovery plan, such as it is, is one part of the much wider system overhaul that is needed.

The Secretary of State said this week that approximately 10 million people represent missing referrals who did not come forward for treatment during the pandemic. I am afraid they may well end up becoming urgent referrals because they have not been through treatment and been spotted and helped at an earlier stage. I do not know whether the Government have given any thought to whether those 10 million missing referrals will lead to increased pressure on emergency services and A&E attendances.

What about those people whose care was not managed to target? The British Heart Foundation estimates that up to 1,865,000 people with high blood pressure were not managed to target last year, which could mean more than 11,000 additional heart attacks and more than 16,000 additional strokes across England over the next three years if those patients do not get support. Of course, that will again increase pressure on urgent and emergency care services in the longer term.

I appreciate there is quite a lot of ground to cover here, but when the Minister responds I would be interested to hear his analysis of the situation, whether he believes the examples I have given are part of a wider pattern of concern or isolated incidents, and what he believes must be done to put the ambulance service on a sustainable, safe footing for the long term. Are those images that we have seen of ambulances queuing up outside hospitals a temporary feature of a very difficult winter, problems with the ambulance service in particular, or symptoms of a wider health and social care system that is under incredible pressure?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Back-to-back appearances at the Dispatch Box by Ed Argar.

17:13

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

Reflecting the rest of the week, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate. In the same spirit, this is rather nice; it is like déjà vu: he used to shadow me at that Dispatch Box and in Committee. It is a pleasure to respond to his debate on this occasion.

However, I must say that responding to the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure slightly tempered by caution on my part, because I know the depths of his expertise on this subject after his many years shadowing the Minister for Health—I think he shadowed my predecessors as well. He has great depth of knowledge in this space. He is and has been a notable advocate for our ambulance service and what it needs, and he looks forensically into those issues. I also know that he is a diligent reader of The BMJ, the Health Service Journal and various other excellent trade and specialist publications. It is a genuine pleasure to respond to him on this extremely important issue. It is a shame that the way in which the House allocates debates means that this is the last debate of the day, so there are few Members in the Chamber for it, because it is important. However, those we have in the Chamber are quality, and I look both at the shadow Minister—sorry, the former shadow Minister—and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, ambulance services have faced extraordinary pressures during the pandemic. I am sure that the House will join me and the shadow Minister—the former shadow Minister; by force of habit, I keep calling him the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always agreed, but we have been as one in paying tribute to all those who work in our ambulance services up and down the country. They have done an amazing job over the past two years, during the pandemic, to the very best of their ability. Of course, they do that amazing job day in, day out; irrespective of pandemics, they always do everything they can to support those who need them.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that the pandemic has placed significant demands on the service. In January 2022, it answered more than 800,000 calls. That is an increase of 11% on January 2020 and is one of the factors placing significant pressures on ambulance services, the wider NHS and the A&E departments to which they will take people when they feel that there is a clinical need. Although 999 calls tend to highlight the demand related to more serious medical conditions, many ambulance services are also responsible for 111 calls, which, in December last year, saw an increase of 15.5% compared with December 2019.

I use those statistics to illustrate the demand pressures, but I understand that behind those numbers, in every case, lies a human story—someone in need of care, someone worried and anxious, with friends and family anxious for them—so before I seek to go into the reasons, statistics and our plans and support, I want to say that I am sorry for patients who have suffered the impact of those service pressures. I want to be very clear that patients should expect and receive the highest standards of service and care.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted some specific examples, including the case of Bina Patel. He is right that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised that with me. I have asked for full information because I want to get back to her with as full an answer as I can, and I hope that he can convey that to her, if he speaks to her before I do. I am fully aware of her correspondence raising this on behalf of the family.

Let me turn to ambulance response times and the reasons sitting behind some of the pressures. The ambulance service is facing a range of challenges that are impacting on its performance. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with many of them, including the impact, still, of infection prevention and control measures not only in the ambulance service but particularly in A&E departments and wider acute clinical settings. Higher instances of delays in the handover of ambulance patients into A&E as a result of some of those factors, which I will turn to, are therefore leading to ambulances waiting for longer in queues and not being as swiftly out and about on the road and able to respond to calls. So there are knock-on effects there.

One of the key challenges, which the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, remains the question of flow through an A&E and through a hospital. I am referring to the flow of patients out of ambulances into the A&E, who are then able to be treated in the A&E and discharged, hopefully, or who are then, in some cases, able to be admitted to a bed in a hospital ward. To do that, we have to see discharges continue of patients who no longer meet the criteria to reside because they have recovered sufficiently, and the national discharge taskforce has done a huge amount of work on addressing that challenge.

In recent months, we have seen the combined pressures of winter—the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with those on an annual basis—and the impact of the omicron variant on the number of hospitalisations, which have not been as high as many feared and predicted, thankfully, but which have still had a significant impact on hospital beds. The combination of those factors, coupled with a high level of workforce sickness absence rates, including through positive covid tests—particularly over recent months with omicron—has created pressures that we would not expect to be systemic or built into the system. That partly reflects longer term pressures, and I will move on to what we are doing to address those, but a large element of it is down to the specific circumstances of the past winter.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the support in place to improve services, and asked what we are going to do about it, and what is being done to address these issues. He is true to form from when he shadowed me, as he will always set out the challenge and ask me what I am going to do or am doing about it, rightly holding the Government to account. Because of the pressures I mentioned we have put in place strong support to improve ambulance response times, including a £55 million investment in staffing capacity to manage winter pressures to the end of March. All trusts are receiving part of that funding, which will increase call handling and operational response capacity, boosting staff numbers by around 700.

NHS England has strengthened its health and wellbeing support for ambulance trusts, recognising the pressure of the job on those working in the ambulance services, with £1.75 million being invested to support the wellbeing of frontline ambulance staff during the current pressures. NHS England and Improvement is undertaking targeted support for the most challenged hospitals, to improve their patient handover processes, helping ambulances to get swiftly back out on the road. That is focused on the most challenged hospital sites where delays are predominantly concentrated, with the 29 acute trusts operating those sites being responsible for more than 60% of the 60 million-plus handover delays nationally. That is targeted support for trusts that have particular challenges, either from the current situation or where there are underlying issues that we need to resolve.

There is capital investment of £4.4 million to keep an additional 154 ambulances on the road this winter, and a £75 million investment in NHS 111 to boost staff numbers by just over 1,000, boosting call taking and clinical advice capacity that will better help patients at home, and better help triage those who genuinely need an ambulance and those who can be treated safely in a different context. There is continuous central monitoring and support for ambulance trusts from NHS England’s national ambulance co-ordination centre, and we have also made significant long-term investments in the ambulance workforce. The number of NHS ambulance staff and support staff has increased by 38% since July 2010.

More broadly, alongside the ambitious plan set out by the Government earlier this week, showing how we will invest the significant additional resources in outcomes for patients, just over a year ago we invested £450 million in A and E departments, to help mitigate the impact through increased capacity of infection prevention and control measures. I have regular direct meetings about discharge rates, and what we can do further to improve the flow of patients through hospital trusts within NHS England, with members of the taskforce on that.

I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those measures have had an impact, and we are seeing improvements in response times from the peak of the pressures in December. Performance data for January, published today, shows significant improvement against all response time categories. Performance for category 1 calls—the most serious calls, classified as life-threatening—has largely been maintained at around nine minutes on average over the past several months, and improved to eight minutes and 31 seconds in the latest figures. That is despite a 19% increase in the number of incidents in that category compared with December 2019. Average responses to category 2 calls improved by more than 15 minutes compared with December, and the 90th centile responses to category 3 calls by more than two hours.

We recognise that that is welcome progress, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, but there is much further to go to recover fully from the pandemic’s impact on response times and to sustain that improvement. We welcome the service’s hard work and dedication and pay tribute to it for making those changes and delivering the significant improvements on which I am updating the hon. Gentleman.

[Justin Madders]

As always, the Minister is being courteous and comprehensive in his response. Will he comment on the concern expressed earlier about patients being told, when visited by the service, that they needed to go to hospital but should find their own way there? That is extremely worrying, and we should be clear that it is not what we expect to happen.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I keep feeling tempted to say shadow Minister; he is a shadow Minister but he is no longer my shadow—for that point. He is right that when people ring 999 they should be given the appropriate clinical advice on whether they need to go to hospital, and if they do, an ambulance should be sent. I suspect that in individual cases a call handler may have made a tough clinical decision about the fastest way to get someone to hospital given the availability of ambulances, but the hon. Gentleman is right that if someone rings 999 and their condition is clinically deemed to require an ambulance and swift transfer to hospital, they should be able to expect an ambulance to come, assist them and take them to hospital.

At a time when the NHS is facing unprecedented demand, ambulance services are absorbing some of the increase in pressure. They are treating more people over the phone and finding other ways to reduce pressure in a clinically safe way. With clinical support in control rooms, the ambulance service is closing around 11% of 999 calls with clinical advice over the phone. That is far more than the 6.5% achieved in January 2020 and saves valuable ambulance resources for response to genuinely more urgent clinical needs.

Let me say a little about North West Ambulance Service, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he and the hon. Member for City of Chester take a close interest in their local ambulance service. Our support and investment has benefited the North West Ambulance Service. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston’s local trust received £6.2 million of funding, which it has used to increase its workforce for operational and contact centre teams. The trust is also engaged with regional NHS England and Improvement and commissioning teams to develop a six-point winter plan that seeks to address six key areas throughout the winter period. As it starts to get a little warmer and the daffodils start to come out, it is tempting for people to think that winter has passed, but winter pressures in the NHS can continue into late February and occasionally a bit beyond. I wanted to add that caveat.

Three systems-led initiatives focus on the reduction of hospital handover times, the improvement of pathways for patients with mental health presentations and ensuring that alternatives to emergency departments—including access to primary care and other non-emergency-department pathways—are available to North West Ambulance Service in a timely and responsive manner.

Hospital handover delays continue to challenge the North West Ambulance Service footprint. Through its Every Minute Matters collaboration, which began three years ago, the trust has been working with other hospital trusts on improvements by working with senior leadership teams in hospital trusts to ensure there is a shared understanding of the risks of handover delays and a lack of ambulance resources to respond to patients in the community, to revisit action cards for operational commanders and, crucially, to recognise and thank staff for their continued reporting of delays and willingness to highlight problems to their managers or to the trust.

The trust’s strategic winter plan has been activated and includes details of the measures in place to handle winter pressures and mitigate the effects of increased demand and a loss of capacity. The plan is comprehensive and covers a wide range of topics and details on the preparation for various scenarios. It includes several continuous improvement initiatives for support during the winter period.

In summary, North West Ambulance Service is increasing its double-crewed ambulance capacity in line with winter funding arrangements, reducing conveyance to emergency departments and reducing the number of lost operational hours caused by day-to-day operational challenges. The trust has already seen significant improvements in the number of patients managed effectively through telephone advice, which helps free up ambulances to be deployed to where they are most needed. The trust has recruited additional paramedics and emergency medical technicians and upskilled its ambulance care assistants to blue light driving standard, thereby enabling the trust to deploy 269 additional frontline staff by the end of December.

I close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to support the ambulance service. We retain regular contact with ambulance services, trusts and those delivering on the frontline to help to ensure that patients and the ambulance service receive the care and support that they need. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this matter to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

17:26

House adjourned.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Philip Hollobone

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

Blunt, Crispin (Reigate) (Con)

† Bonnar, Steven (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)

† Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

† Foster, Kevin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Jones, Mr David (Clwyd West) (Con)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)

McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)

McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Bradley Albrow, Gavin Blake, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022

11:30

[The Chair]

Mr Speaker would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear face coverings when not speaking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016 sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged for each function. Members will have noticed that the draft order is not the longest piece of immigration legislation that we have ever considered in a Delegated Legislation Committee, given that it seeks to make only two changes to the fees order, specifically amendments to the maximum amount that can be charged for two application types: entry clearance as a visitor for a period of up to six months, more commonly known as the short-term visit visa; and entry clearance or leave to remain as a student.

I want to make it clear at the outset that the changes do not alter the fees paid by customers. Specific fee levels are set out in separate legislation, namely the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, and those levels are not impacted by the amendments we are debating. The changes in the draft amendment order, however, will serve to increase the flexibility on fees in future.

The maximum amount that can be charged for a short-term visit visa will increase by £35, from £95 to £130. That will align the fee maximum to the published unit cost for that product. The maximum amount for entry clearance or limited leave as a student will be raised by £10, from £480 to £490. That relatively small increase will provide some additional headroom on student fees, in particular those close to the existing maximum.

For background, both changes mark the first time that the maximum amounts will have increased since 2016. They will provide additional flexibility on those fees, allowing the Home Office to consider a balanced approach to fee changes across our visa routes.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Minister and I have history, and I like him as a person. It is interesting that these amounts are a ceiling, but I wonder whether he has seen the figures from 2019. He talks about student visas, but in the five years to 2019 the fee for limited leave to remain went up by 79% and that for indefinite leave to remain by 119%. At the time, there was an excellent comment in The Times Thunderer page—by me, actually—headlined, “Home Office must be stopped from running fees racket”, because apparently processing costs had gone down in that time, although the fees went up. I am pleased that he is setting a ceiling, but will he bear in mind that fees have been ratcheted up and up in the years until now and will he ensure that it really is a ceiling, to keep the fees down?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As she says, we get on well. It is good to get that totally independent analysis—in quality and method—in the article that she wrote for The Times.

Over recent years, immigration fees have generally risen so that more of the costs of the migration system are borne by those who use it, rather than by the wider taxpayer. Colleagues will have realised that in the past couple of years there has been a big difference in the income from fees because of the pandemic. Inevitably, wider funding from the taxpayer has increased.

The changes we are discussing specifically will be only to the maximums for two routes. They will reflect the current unit costs, in particular for the short-term visit visas, although, as I said, the draft order will not change the fee to be paid by applicants. That would need a separate statutory instrument to alter the fees themselves.

We are conscious that we need to ensure that our routes are competitive and give value to those who apply for them. One of the core rules in the rest of our work is to simplify our immigration system to reduce the amount of times that people need to instruct a lawyer to help them with their application, which in many cases can represent a significant cost that might not be seen as a fee, but affects how much people end up paying to secure their status in this country.

Changes under consideration by the Home Office are about adjustments to simplify the range of fees payable by customers, including removing specific additional charges and consolidating what people are required to pay into one overarching fee. A good example is removing the biometric enrolment fees charged alongside certain applications, with these costs recovered through the main application fees instead, which we believe is a simpler and much more transparent approach to the cost of a visa. We will of course share further details about some of the changes we are looking to make with colleagues and the House when we are in a position to do so.

Colleagues will be aware that migration and borders functions are largely funded by immigration and nationality fees as part of the Home Office spending settlement to reduce the burden on the taxpayer more widely. It is critical that any changes are funded by other changes within the system. It is therefore vital that the maximum amount set out in the fees order allows appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced approach overall to the fees we charge. I emphasise again that we are not changing any fee levels through the order. Any changes to specific fees would be subject to cross-Government consultation and further parliamentary clearance and would be implemented through fees regulations, not this order, I therefore hope Committee members see the need for it.

[The Chair]

The debate can last until 1 pm, and I call Stephen Kinnock.

11:36

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. I appreciated your pause before calling me to speak. I took the subliminal message in that very clearly and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

I start by thanking the Minister for setting out the purpose and content of the order. For the sake of our national security and economic prosperity, we on the Opposition Benches firmly support the system for managed migration on the basis that it must be sensible, sustainable and humane. That includes keeping a clear record of who is entering and leaving our country and ensuring that they have the means to support themselves and their dependants. We therefore recognise the need to charge a fee for a visa, not only to cover the administration costs but to ensure that the applicant can sustain themselves for the time that they are here.

However, we are surprised at the dramatic rise, from £95 to £130, for six-month visitor visas. We understand the need to find ways to replenish the Treasury coffers after the economic earthquakes caused by covid and leaving the European Union, but is there not a danger that the increase will discourage tourism at a time when we need to get the UK economy firing on all cylinders? Is welcoming—rather than discouraging—tourism not a key part of the plan to build back better following 12 years of anaemic growth?

We will not directly oppose the order, because we recognise the tough economic choices that Governments must make, particularly in uncertain times. Nevertheless, we will appreciate it if the Minister considers reflecting on and answering the following questions. Will he set out the criteria on which the Government made the decision to increase maximum charges by the specific percentage that they have, and particularly by the sizeable 37% increase, from £95 to £130, for a six-month visitor visa? Will he explain in which circumstances the UK Government might charge that maximum fee? That is to say, will he confirm whether the £130 maximum fee will be applied to visitors from all countries to which the existing £95 fee is currently applied?

Will the Minister explain whether there will be different price points for visitors that undertake business visits and those coming only for leisure purposes? Will he state whether there will be different price points for single-entry visas and multiple-entry visas? What assessment has he made of the impact that that will have on the number of visa applications from ordinary holidaymakers, and the broader impact on our economy? What assessment has he made of that impact on Treasury fiscal balancing requirements? Will he commit to a periodic review to understand the impact that the changes we are debating today have had on people entering the country, on the overall numbers of visitor visas and on some of the broader questions about the impact on our economy? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

11:40

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the shadow Minister for what was overall a constructive contribution, and I note that he does not plan to oppose the order. To address some of his questions, the criterion was to set the maximum at what we declare as the unit cost. We did not take a percentage figure for the short-term visit visa; it was based on the fact that the current unit cost is about £130, and the current maximum is £95. That was the logic. We were not, for example, looking for a specific 30% fee. We were setting the maximum as the cost of processing a short-term visit visa application.

The fee applies to everyone who applies for a short-term visit visa. Again, the order that we are debating today does not change the amount paid by a customer. After it has been passed, people will still pay £95 for a short-term visit visa until we bring forward changes to the fees regulations. For a range of reasons, particularly non-discrimination, those who are visa nationals—those who are required to get entry clearance prior to coming to the United Kingdom—would all pay this fee. There are many countries to which that does not apply; most notably, citizens of the B5JSSK—that is, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America—our key allies globally, and of the European economic area, as well as any other non-visa national, would be able to come here and make their entry clearance application at the border, or through an e-gate in the case of a number of nationalities. The fee would apply to all visa nationals who are required to apply for a visa to come to the UK for a range of purposes.

The hon. Member for Aberavon has asked whether there is a separate fee if somebody is coming on business or on leisure. Provided that the person is coming for a business purpose that is provided under the visitor route, the answer is no. However, if they were coming to work or for certain occupations, they would need to apply, but that would be for a separate visa. The hon. Member may be aware that we plan to introduce a global business mobility visa to bring together a number of our routes for coming to the UK, not to work in a permanent job or to work towards settlement, which is what the skilled worker visa does, but to make use of certain trade agreements under which people can travel in and out of the UK and do particular functions and roles. That would not be done under the visitor route. A businessperson can come to the UK on a visitor visa to, for example, visit a trade fair, give a lecture, or do what is called a permitted paid engagement, which can be anything from performing at a local theatre for up to 28 days to arguing a court case as a lawyer here in the UK. Under the visitor route, people can do quite a range of things that we might consider to be for business purposes alongside all the things that happen for leisure purposes—for example, short-term study for up to six months is permitted under the visitor route. There would not be a different fee; the fee is the same.

People can apply for multiple entry visas. They apply over a number of years, and there is a different fee scale for them. The visa gives people permission for up to six months, and it is not uncommon for people to apply for entry permission, for instance because they are visiting family here in the UK. They will perhaps be stay for up to four months, but may travel in and out of the UK while they are here—provided, of course, that they secure relevant visas from the Schengen zone, and provided that their main purpose for being in the UK is compatible with the visitor route and they seek re-entry during the time for which their visa is valid.

An impact assessment will be done if we move to change the fees that are charged. If we change the fees that people pay, which the order does not do, we will not have to go from £95 to the maximum. There are a lot of points in between. If we changed the fees, we would do an assessment. I represent Torbay, where the economy is very heavily built on the tourism sector, and we would clearly want to consider what effect an increased visa fee might have on tourism. For many people, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of coming to the UK. Most of our near neighbours are non-visa nationals, so they would not be applying for this visa in the first place. We are talking about what are more likely to be long-haul journeys, where the cost of the visa itself is unlikely to be the main determining factor. It will be more about ensuring that someone can qualify for the visa—that is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they can show that they can sustain themselves here, and that they are not planning to work when they should not be coming to work under this particular visa route. We will of course pay very careful attention to the tourism market and international visitors. We look forward to seeing a regrowth in international travel, particularly as travel restrictions start to be eased more in the global context this summer. That will be one of our key considerations in any move to increase what customers are paying.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about a periodic review. We keep our fees under regular review. We look to see what impact they are having. We also of course look to compare them against those of competitor nations, where people may be thinking of going on holiday. For example, particular places that we look at are the United States and the Schengen zone. At the moment, we are comparable. Our visitor route is quite a generous one, of up to 180 days, and with quite a range of things that people can do that perhaps in other jurisdictions they might need to apply for a separate visa to do. I am thinking particularly of some of the cultural performances that people can do under paid permitted engagement, which is quite a wide permission.

Again, I welcome the overall constructive tone of the remarks from the shadow Minister. I hope that my responses give him some comfort in relation to some of the questions that he had for me.

Question put and agreed to

11:46

Committee rose.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Charles Walker, Hannah Bardell

† Aiken, Nickie (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

† Churchill, Jo (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Daly, James (Bury North) (Con)

† Evennett, Sir David (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)

Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)

† Morris, Grahame (Easington) (Lab)

† Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Mrs Heather (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Sarah Ioannou, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

11:30

[The Chair]

Colleagues, before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available and that all of you have flights and trains to catch, I hope we can take these matters without debate.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 10 February) meet at 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 February;

(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 10 February.—(Jo Churchill.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jo Churchill.)

[The Chair]

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Members wishing to press an amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it whether that is what they wish to do.

Clause 1

Animal Sentience Committee

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The clause requires the Government to create and maintain the Animal Sentience Committee. The committee will be at the core of the Bill’s targeted, proportionate and timely mechanism for holding the Government to account on the consideration of animal welfare.

On Second Reading, it was asked why the committee needs to be established in legislation and why the Animal Welfare Committee could not fulfil the function outlined in the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Animal Sentience Committee is to support Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision-making process. The committee is not there to advise or make decisions for Ministers. Instead, it will perform a valuable role in encouraging us to make sure we have properly considered the effect of policy on the welfare of animals. Creating the committee and placing it on a statutory footing is the best way of ensuring that the Bill’s recognition of animal sentience is given meaningful but proportionate effect.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I think the Committee is at one in wanting to ensure that we have adequate protections for animals. That has been supported in the petitions and the written evidence. Will the Minister clarify one point on human-relevant science? I am involved with the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, which was established to ensure that alternatives are provided to testing on live animals, particularly in vitro, using cell cultures and so on. Does that fall within the purview of the Bill?

[Jo Churchill]

The point of the new committee is not to make value judgments. It is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that all due regard is taken of the welfare of animals. Such decisions are for the committee to determine, supported by the secretariat.

Creating the committee on a statutory footing will mean that it must act within the legal parameters set by the Bill. The Bill is clear that the committee has no power to make value judgments—these decisions are for Ministers. At the same time, the obligation placed on Ministers to respond to the committee’s report is essential for transparency and for the scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision making. Ministers do not have to accept the committee’s findings and recommendations, but they have an obligation under the Bill to respond to them promptly and openly.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The written evidence submitted by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation asks about membership of the committee and notes

“the importance of using a wide range of leading animal sentience experts”.

It also wants affiliations to, and past involvement with, non-governmental organisations to be made transparent, and states that previous involvement with NGOs should not be a barrier to membership. Does the Minister accept all the recommendations from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation?

[Jo Churchill]

I refer the hon. Lady to the terms of reference, which lay out that the Secretary of State will request that those who are on the committee will be from a broad spectrum. We will ensure that we have the chance to make use of the best expertise in order to advise Ministers, but we will not be overly prescriptive. However, the final arbiter of that will be the Secretary of State.

It is not possible to impose an obligation on Ministers without first establishing a committee in statute. A legislative basis for the committee will therefore help to ensure it is effective while ensuring that it is tightly defined. As outlined on pages 5 and 19 to 21 in the terms of reference, we want the Animal Sentience Committee to have a constructive relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, while recognising that they have different functions: the Animal Welfare Committee will sit in an advisory capacity, while the Animal Sentience Committee will sit in a scrutinising capacity. It is important to remember that the two committees have very distinct roles.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and am very proud to be sitting on this Public Bill Committee. The Bill is proportionate, timely and targeted. It is important, because the public believe passionately in animal welfare. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that their justified outpouring of revulsion at the recent video of the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma suggests that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should consider inviting him to animal welfare training in order to prove animal sentience?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I join her in being appalled at what we have seen. I agree that the public care greatly about animal welfare, but the Bill is science led and we are looking at the evidence base. It is for other bodies to choose the direction in which they might take restorative action so that people can learn and be called to account for their behaviour.

The Animal Welfare Committee is a well-respected source of advice on animal welfare issues, but it is not designed to assess policy. Allowing committees to specialise in their separate functions, and ensuring that those who sit on them have the expertise, is the best way to ensure that the objectives are delivered well. I urge that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Deidre Brock has caught my eye.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I appreciate your calling me this early in the debate.

I will just say a few words, because clearly the Bill applies only to England. We have our own measures, as animal welfare is devolved to Scotland, but it might be useful for colleagues to hear a little more about the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, on which the English committee is partly modelled. The Scottish Government often act on the scientific and ethical advice provided by the commission, which was established in 2020. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues, such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer, have been taken forward following the commission’s advice. The commission has welcomed and contributed to legislation on penalties for animal welfare offences and the licensing of activities involving animals, and a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets is also under way. If England’s Animal Sentience Committee is to be similarly effective, there should be mechanisms to ensure that its scrutiny of policy-making processes is taken seriously by the Government.

The Secretary of State was keen to stress that the committee’s reports will not bind the Government to any particular course of action—we have heard the same from the Minister today—and that Ministers will be free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other considerations. While it could be argued that that is appropriate and, perhaps, understandable, it is important that Ministers fully engage with the committee’s assessments, as the Scottish Government have done by incorporating many of SAWC’s recommendations into legislation.

I would like to highlight the Scottish Government’s plans, following SAWC’s recommendations, to introduce legislation to end the harmful practice of setting glue traps—a particularly revolting form of animal abuse. The Scottish Government intend to ban the sale and use of glue traps. However, implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 present an obstacle, despite animal welfare being a devolved area.

The UK Government have backed the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which would ban the use of glue traps by the public in England, except by licensed professionals. However, some stakeholders remain concerned that the licensing regime is too weak and would allow continued liberal use of glue traps. The new market access regime whereby goods sold in one part of the UK—

[The Chair]

Order. This is really straying outside the scope of the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

I am just trying to give an example of where—

[The Chair]

You are, but as Chair of the Committee I must say that it has to be relevant to this Bill. We are not here to talk about a market access Bill. We are talking about the Bill in front of us.

[Deidre Brock]

Okay, Sir Charles. Further to that, the Scottish Government hope to work through those issues, but it demonstrates how that Act can undermine devolution.

In closing, I commend those who have written in with their views, raising distressing issues such as puppy farming and unregulated microchipping and very sad cases of animal abuse. We hope that the Bill will go some way to address those issues. I also commend submissions from organisations such as the RSPCA, which, in particular, impressed me as adopting a very measured but rigorous approach to the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to be able to address the issues in the Bill. I have to say, we have already strayed on to other areas. As I walked into the Committee Room this morning, I saw that the notice on the door has the wrong wording, which rather sums up this Government’s muddled approach to animal welfare. Many people get confused by the various pieces of legislation, with Friday mornings spent discussing each other’s pet animals and so on.

My concern about clause 1 relates to exactly what it says: it sets up a committee. It does not enshrine sentience in law. That is the key point. The Government had the opportunity to put sentience into law when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and other Members across the House tabled a very sensible amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will address that. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster briefly referenced that poor cat. I am not sure what the status of sentience is in our law at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could address that. The hiatus over the past two years has left us in a curious position.

In the sense that it is better than nothing, we welcome the Bill. However, it is pretty close to nothing. As the Minister said, the committee has no power to make value judgments. She might as well have paused in the middle of that sentence—the committee has no power. It is a talking shop.

We will support the Bill in so far as it goes. However, let us be clear: it is a complete betrayal of the Conservatives’ promise to pursue animal welfare issues. We do it; they talk about it.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to respond, Ms McCarthy has caught my eye.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) tabled that amendment, which I seconded, to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. I lose track of what year it was, but I think it was late 2018. We have been doing this an awful long time.

We have discussed this on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also proposed a ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team at the time, told me that the Department wanted to legislate but that it was just looking for the right legislative vehicle. That is why I came up with my ten-minute rule Bill: “Here you are, you just need to back this.”

It was disappointing that the first three Government Back Benchers to speak on Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill were very much against it and the doors it might open. Let us be frank: that was because they fear a cracking down on blood sports and hunting and shooting. That is why we do not have a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, and that is why we have all these little bits of legislation that are doing the rounds at the moment. The Government do not want scope to bring one in. That is what setting up a committee with limited powers is about. If we did truly recognise sentience in law, we would be questioning driven grouse shooting and all the loopholes allowing foxhunting to proceed. The Bill is a paper exercise that will do little to improve animal welfare.

11:45

[Jo Churchill]

To respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, it is important that Ministers take the report seriously. That is why this small Bill places on us a duty to report formally. There is a time limit for reporting formally. The committee will have the freedom to choose how it looks at how Government policy affects animals, and that reporting mechanism is what the Bill is about. That is important.

The hon. Member for Cambridge also spoke. The EFRA Committee said that there was a need for us to carefully draft the Bill. It was formerly drafted in 2017. Judicially reviewing it across the piece would mean that the committee would no longer be able to perform its function, which is to give the Minister they need in order to make a judgment, while being cognisant of all the other things that Ministers have to take into account.

I am sure that we will come on to the definition of sentience when we debate amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East. I gently say, however, that it is not necessary to define sentience in statute in order for the Bill to work. If we accept that animals are sentient, we also accept the principle, supported by the Bill, that their needs must be properly considered in Government decision making. Providing anything more complex than that would tie the hands of the committee and make it a paper exercise—which is not what it is—so there is little reason to do that. Keeping it in this more open form means that it can look across Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Reports of the Committee

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out “adverse”.

This amendment would change the prescriptive wording of the question clause 2 requires the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) to consider, which allows that only “adverse effects” should be considered, and would enable the ASC to be free to consider positive effects which may otherwise be overlooked.

I hope to deal with this amendment pretty quickly. As I said on Second Reading, I do not subscribe to the idea that this country is wonderful on animal welfare. Would action have been taken against a very well-known footballer for kicking his cat had he not videoed himself doing so? There are far too many examples of people with aggressive dogs. Everywhere we see examples of people treating them badly and training them to be angry, aggressive and dangerous creatures. It is clear that the RSPCA does not have the teeth—that is not a pun—to address this. We will later discuss farm animal welfare, where there are many examples of how we could do better.

The amendment would remove the word “adverse” from clause 2. As it stands, the Animal Sentience Committee can only consider the adverse effects of legislation or whatever is put in front of it. I understand that, and I understand that this is meant to be about raising the bar and making sure that future legislation does not worsen animal welfare, but I do not think there would be anything lost if it considered all the effects, rather than just the adverse effects. If the committee were to say of legislation that came before it, “We actually think this is good for improving animal welfare”, where is the harm in that? That would set down a marker to do better in other respects. If that were flagged up, other Departments—and even other Governments in devolved Administrations or, indeed, our former EU partners—might think that it had consequences for them.

The committee should be able to identify the positive effects as well as the adverse effects. Any positive effects would strengthen the case for the legislation. If the Government were having trouble getting their Back Benchers to support a Bill, I would hope that if the Animal Sentience Committee said that it was good for animal welfare, that would strengthen support for it.

The amendment is supported by groups such as Compassion in World Farming. As I have said, animal welfare really is the big forgotten element. We talk about pets—I lose track of how many debates we have about puppies, for example. It is good to be nice to puppies, but far more animals live on farms than live as pets, and I would welcome any move to try to improve their welfare, too.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to improve transparency in policy making. The committee’s ultimate success will be felt in ongoing improvements to the way the Government make decisions affecting animals, and seeing improvements is the hon. Lady’s underlying argument. We agree that sentience is about both the positive and negative experiences that animals might have. Clearly, an adverse effect of a policy would include aspects that restrict positive experiences.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I think the issue is one of drafting, not of misunderstanding. By way of explanation, the committee would be free to assess policy decision making for its consideration of adverse effects. A nice explanation would be in the area of nutrition for pets, for example. Whereas the negative outcomes of poor nutrition are obvious, the positive outcomes, such as ability to play, cannot be realised if pets suffer from poor nutrition. The committee is not required to limit its consideration purely to the adverse effect. By definition, it will consider both sides, but it is not necessary, for the avoidance of doubt, that the point that positive effects can be considered is reinforced in the committee’s draft terms of reference.

I sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Lady’s point that good exemplars may well be a stimulus to others to behave.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I just do not understand, from what the Minister has said, why the Bill cannot say “effects”. She seems to be saying that the committee would look at positive effects—all effects and adverse effects—so I do not understand why the word “adverse” has to be there, based on what she has just said.

[Jo Churchill]

With respect, this is about semantics. It is a matter of drafting, as I have said, and not about misunderstanding. It is simply not necessary to include anything other than that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) In preparing its reports, the Animal Sentience Committee may consult or request information from government departments and other public bodies.

(4B) Public bodies and government departments must cooperate with requests from the Animal Sentience Committee under paragraph (4A).”

This amendment would require Government departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to move amendment 2 to this important piece of legislation. I wish the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster a belated happy birthday for last week, especially since she was born in Wales and us Welsh sisters have to stick together—a little plea there.

I rise to move the amendment in the names of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and for Bristol East. I thank House staff, the teams supporting us as Members, the Clerks and the Public Bill Office in particular for their work helping us to get here today. It is important to say that at the beginning because we tend to forget at the end, and it is important to note their work.

As we discuss another important piece of legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill—not the sentencing Bill as it says on the door—it is important for us to think about the scope and reach of our actions and the effectiveness of legislation that passes through the House. That is why we are moving amendment 2 and will press it to a vote. The Bill is one of a number of major pieces of animal welfare legislation that either has gone through the House, is before the House or will come back before us in the weeks ahead.

In short, amendment 2 would require Departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee. That is important to ensure the committee receives the information it needs to prepare its reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was an excellent and energetic shadow Secretary of State, and I enjoyed working with him. Amendment 2 is very much a reflection of the points he raised during Second Reading on 18 January 2022. In his excellent speech, he quite reasonably suggested that a large Department that has been historically removed from animal welfare issues could feel empowered to ignore committee requests for information, and it could do so because there is currently no legally binding obligation on Departments to engage with the committee. That is why the amendment is so important and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

I am sure the Minister would want to ensure the Animal Sentience Committee, in the words of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, is not “toothless”—sorry, I get told off for my pronunciation. I urge the Minister to let Labour help her. Amendment 2 provides the perfect opportunity to ensure the Bill is not a toothless piece of legislation and that the Animal Sentience Committee is a body that will deliver. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Select Committee, is right to want a strong Bill and a strong Animal Sentience Committee. We all eagerly await to hear what the Minister thinks about that. I agree with the EFRA Committee that we want the Bill to be strong. We want the scope and reach of the committee to be strong, and the amendment would do exactly that. Does the Minister agree with us?

In preparing to move amendment 2, I caught sight of the written evidence from the campaigners Better Deal for Animals, and I ask the Minister to take a moment to reflect on it and in doing so, to give her support to amendment 2. The evidence makes the point that

“the Bill does have a weakness. The delegation of animal sentience responsibilities to the ASC, a body adjacent to rather than part of Government, creates the risk that the ASC (and with it, animal sentience issues) could be effectively ignored by decision makers. This risk was highlighted in the letter from the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of second reading in the Commons, which warned that ‘the ASC risks becoming simply another toothless Whitehall committee whose reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy-making go largely unaddressed.’”

It says that while the terms of reference

“provide some assurance that the ASC will have the independence and powers it needs to do its job, amendments to the face of the Bill would go further in ensuring that the ASC and its work is closely tied into government operations and Parliamentary business, to such an extent as to make it difficult to ignore.”

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

As we consider the amendment, we need to think about what Compassion in World Farming said:

“Compassion continues to feel that the Bill provides a satisfactory implementation of the commitment to maintain a commitment to full regard for animal sentience in policy development after Brexit, and we welcome the fact that the Government has sought to go beyond a bare statement to establishing a mechanism to monitor its ongoing commitment. The draft terms of reference successfully clarified a number of the issues raised in the Lords, and we hope that the Bill will complete its passage without delay, leading to a successful launch of the Committee later this year and reinstating the official recognition of animal sentience in the formulation and implementation of policy.”

I share much of that view, and it is why the Labour party supports the Bill.

The amendment would ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose as it works its way through to passage without delay. As the Minister will recall, Labour Members spoke proudly in favour of the Bill—indeed, support for the Bill was stronger on this side of the House than among some Conservative Members—so I hope that the Government will meet us half way and accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended.

Although the amendment was tabled by the Labour party, we are not the only ones who want to see the issues that it covers put into practice. Indeed, I was interested to read the thoughts of Dr Steven McCulloch, senior lecturer in animal studies at the University of Winchester’s Centre for Animal Welfare, who remarked:

“Aside from the power to produce a report, there are no further powers provided for in the Bill. In order to conduct the three functions”

of

“animal welfare impact assessments, ethical review, Government scrutiny,”

the Animal Sentience Committee

“would require access to certain information. This information would include…advance notice of any policies that might impact sentient species…relevant documents related to the potential impacts”

of the above,

“access to the minister(s) and civil servant(s) that are leading on such policies, and…access to documents and other sources of information relating to how the Government has gone about paying ‘all due regard’ to animal welfare in policy making.”

In the light of those words, I suspect that Dr McCulloch would look favourably on the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will, too.

The Minister’s noble Friend Lord Moylan gave a curious speech in their Lordships’ House. He said:

“I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.”

He went on:

“We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.”

Amendment 2 is so important because, as Lord Moylan continued,

“No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1735.]

That is more than enough from the noble Lord.

I want the Bill to be effective and snappy—to continue with the crocodile inspiration. I know that crocodiles in the Zambezi would be supportive of amendment 2, and that is why it would be a welcome addition to the Bill. I urge the Minister to join us in our support for the amendment. Let us make the Bill fit for purpose.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon Friend, who made an important set of points about this amendment. I would like to move from crocodiles to pigs because, frankly, what is happening across the fields of the country is ghastly. While there may be questions over the size of a crocodile’s brain, I think we all know that pigs are intelligent creatures.

My point in raising that is that, with this amendment, a range of Government Departments would be driven to have to respond in a crisis like this. It has an awful effect on the people having to kill pigs in fields—we think possibly some 35,000 so far. I must also say, there was a dreadful response from DEFRA to a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, just on DEFRA’s basic knowledge of the numbers—“We don’t know; we don’t ask”.

A much stronger piece of legislation like this, driving the committee, would have forced Government Departments to have actually acted. I notice that the Minister did not respond to my earlier question about the current situation of sentience. We in the Opposition all know that pigs are sentient, but the hiatus in the legal setup means that it is very hard to hold the Government to account for the awful set of circumstances that are unfolding.

[Jo Churchill]

I agree that this is an important piece of legislation and, like the hon. Member for Newport West, I hope it will go forward in a timely way. I thank the EFRA Committee for the work that it has done in helping to guide us in ensuring that the Bill is as precise as it is. It is important to understand that there are two duties here.

The hon. Lady argued that the Animal Sentience Committee needs the power to compel Government Departments and public bodies to provide any information that the committee requests. While I would agree that it is key for the committee to have the necessary information to do its job, placing an additional duty on Departments to provide the committee with documents would just create additional grounds for judicial reviews. If a Department or public body was seen not to fully comply with the requests made by the Animal Sentience Committee, there would be grounds for a challenge.

The Bill has been carefully considered and worded to give meaningful effect to the principle of animal sentience without getting tied up in legal challenges. We want the committee to focus on current and future policy. Its aim is to improve transparency in decision making and in the policy-making process. The committee will build on and improve the evidence base, which I have referred to, that informs Government policy.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister talks about the evidence base, but how can the committee develop an evidence base if it submits a request to another Department, but that Department sees fit to ignore it?

[Jo Churchill]

I will come on to that in my answer because, arguably, the one thing the committee does have up its sleeve is the ability to name and shame if it is not responded to. That is the key thing to keep there.

The scope of the Bill covers all central Government policy decisions, from formulation to implementation. It aims to support the policy-making decision process, rather than operational decisions made by public bodies outside of those Departments. We have kept the scope to Ministerial Departments because we want the committee to focus its scrutiny on the key policy decisions affecting animal welfare.

That is why, as set out in the terms of reference, which the hon. Lady referred to, the committee’s secretariat will assist in raising awareness of the committee’s role and in forming an overview of relevant policy decisions. That work has already started in the Department to ensure that other Departments, at an official level, are ready, and there, to establish effective communication—which arguably was the underlying ask of the amendment—with the Committee. Guidance will also be provided to Departments on their responsibilities under the Bill. We believe that to be the most effective way in which to ensure that the committee has all the information that it needs to do its role. There are two powers in the Bill, not just one: we establish the committee and, crucially, that responsibility on a Minister—the duty to reply.

I am sure that Governments will provide the committee with relevant information, if requested, and if the committee struggles to engage with a particular Department or to receive information, it will be free to highlight that in its response. Ministers will then have their duty to respond to those reports. I am confident that no Minister will want their Department to be highlighted as unco-operative in the area of animal welfare. I therefore believe that the Bill, and the functions and the powers that it confers on the Animal Sentience Committee, are sufficient as drafted.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. We are still not satisfied, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the commencement of this Act, set out a timetabled plan for the extension of Animal Sentience Committee scope to any other public bodies deemed relevant.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies.

The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West, for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol East, for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and my hon. Friend the Labour Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), among others listed on the amendment paper.

The amendment is self-explanatory, but I will take the opportunity to speak to it briefly and, I hope, to persuade Conservative colleagues in Committee to support it. I gently remind the Minister that the Bill has the support of the Opposition, but we want to make it even better, stronger and go further. Like the excellent amendment 3, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, amendment 4 proposes a realistic and pragmatic addition to the Bill. All things being equal, it should be welcomed by all colleagues in Committee.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is no longer on the Bill Committee—we all wish him well in his new role—but I wish to quote him. In a strong speech on Second Reading, he said,

“on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA…to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 255.]

How could anyone disagree with that?

The Minister would do us all a favour by making it clear that extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies would be really effective. If she will not support the amendment, I hope she will explain why. The amendment would bring some common sense to the Bill, and it would make for a joined-up approach that will deliver real results. That is what the Bill must be about—it must be about results, delivery and making the committee fit for purpose.

00:05

In its excellent submission to the EFRA Committee, the RSPCA said:

“The Bill is novel and important because, for the first time in the UK, it requires an animal welfare impact assessment to be undertaken by Government Ministries when making policy. Such a system already exists in New Zealand and the Netherlands; establishing this in the UK is an important step for animal welfare, restoring this country’s position as a world leader in this area. A balancing exercise already exists for many environmental considerations, such as the protection of endangered species within the planning process.”

I thank the RSPCA for its report and submission, for all the work it does in standing up for animal welfare and supporting the Bill, and for delivering for our animals and wildlife for so many years. I note that Her Majesty the Queen is patron of the RSPCA. In the week that Her Majesty marks her accession to the throne, I know that hon. Members, in considering amendment 4, will want to send her our appreciation and thanks for a lifetime of service.

I want the Minister to know that amendment 4 would help her to meet the aims and objectives of the Bill. We are charting a new course, which is why many Opposition Members are confused that some Government Members do not welcome the Bill. We are making history, and we have the chance to set an example now and in the months and years ahead. By extending the remit of the new Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies, we would be delivering a sensible and coherent plan to maintain and protect the sentience of animals in all parts of our national life. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, from whom I know we will hear more later, has form on this issue. Back in 2020, she moved her excellent ten-minute rule Bill attempting to put sentience into law while at the same time covering public bodies. Once again, she was ahead of the curve.

Extending the ASC to cover public bodies is something that the campaign organisation Better Deal for Animals strongly argued for in 2019. It stands to reason that the Animal Sentience Committee should be able to consider whether a public body that regularly has an impact on animals has taken welfare into account in its decision making, which is why I have tabled amendment 4. Let us take Natural England as an example of why the amendment is important. When Natural England decides on contentious issues such as licensing the shooting of game birds, the welfare of those birds as sentient beings should be a factor in its consideration. The amendment would ensure that the ASC is able to scrutinise whether the welfare of the game birds has been taken into consideration. The Minister will see that the wording of amendment 4 is intended to be helpful. It gives a year for the Minister to provide the timetable for the extension of the committee’s scope to other public bodies, so there is time to prepare.

Finally, I want to say a word about the British Veterinary Association. In advance of this morning’s sitting, I read the BVA’s policy statement on the recognition of animals as sentient beings with great interest. It says:

“Recognising animals as sentient beings provides the basis for our moral concern for the welfare of animals. Animals are living beings with the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, so they should be legally protected. This is an important issue for the veterinary profession.”

The statement continues:

“BVA supports placing a duty to consider animal welfare on public authorities when formulating and implementing policies in line with the duty that exists within Article 13 of the TFEU. This duty should be inclusive of wild animals, animals used in laboratories, sport and recreation, farm animals, Equidae, companion animals, and animals kept as part of zoological collections. This duty on public authorities would complement the duties placed on individuals by the UK’s Animal Welfare Acts.”

The BVA is correct, and the amendment will give effect to its thoughts and those of many campaigners who welcome the Bill and want to see it strengthened. We would be giving effect to our collective moral concern for animals, and I urge the Minister and all her colleagues to support the amendment.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her co-operation; I know that she is merely trying to assist. At this point, I would like to associate myself with her comments on Her Majesty the Queen.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Animal Sentience Committee’s scope and public bodies, because we gave a great deal of consideration to both the scope and appropriateness. We expect the committee to focus on Government policy decisions that could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As we have previously indicated, that is expected to be in the region of six individual policy decisions per year. Given the breadth of government, the committee will need to be selective in what it scrutinises. It is unlikely that these kinds of decisions will be made outside ministerial Departments, because the vast majority of policy decisions with a significant bearing on animal welfare will be made within the Departments themselves.

The Bill is designed to create timely, proportionate and targeted mechanisms for holding Ministers to account. By their nature, and relative to core Departments, non-departmental public bodies operate at arm’s length from Ministers. Extending this committee’s remit beyond central Government Departments would not be targeted and so would not be in line with the aims of what we are trying to achieve. By the same token, we will not ask the committee to scrutinise policy decisions that may be made at local authority level, for example, because that would impose an unnecessary workload on the committee and, arguably, on our hard-working local authorities. It is unclear who would then answer in Parliament to any reports that came forward—that might be issued by, say, a local authority or a body—because Ministers cannot answer for a report and decisions that they did not make. For those reasons, the Government consider that the current scope of the Bill is the right one.

[Ruth Jones]

Given the NGOs’ comments and encouragement to the Opposition to lay this amendment, we will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

Clause 2 tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with publishing reports that give its opinion on whether, or to what extent, Ministers have had all due regard to the needs of animals as sentient beings when formulating and implementing Government policy. The clause allows the committee to include recommendations on how this might be done in the future development of a policy in question. Lastly, the clause requires that the committee’s reports are published.

These measures sit at the heart of our proposals to create a proportionate and timely accountability mechanism that rests with Parliament, rather than the courts. The committee will have the powers to publish reports—importantly, including critical reports—on the Government policy decision-making process. However, the committee’s powers are well defined so as to ensure that it complements that decision-making process by giving additional evidence. The clause and the wider Bill do not authorise the committee to dictate or advocate a particular policy position, or critique how a Minister might decide to balance competing policy considerations. Ministers will continue to decide the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other important considerations when making decisions.

In the event that a committee report was critical of Government performance, Parliament would be able to consider the report and the Government’s written response that must be laid before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. After considering them, the decision would rest with hon. Members in this House and noble Lords in the other place on whether to make further inquiries on the subject using the mechanisms available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Response to reports

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to each response to a report from the Animal Sentience Committee laid before Parliament under paragraph (1).”.

This amendment would require the Minister to give an oral response to Animal Sentience Committee reports, creating an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of report recommendations and the Government’s response.

Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay a response to reports produced by the Animal Sentience Committee before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication, as the Minister has outlined. We absolutely accept that it is right that the Secretary of State should be tasked with that responsibility. The reports will consider, as laid out in clause 2(2),

“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect”—

despite our attempts—

“on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”

The committee may, therefore, criticise the Government’s policy-making processes. I noticed that the Minister acknowledged the possibility that the Government could be criticised in some circumstances, and I welcome that possibility. The committee could applaud the Government, or provide recommendations for improvements.

It is right that the Secretary of State responds to the findings. Where shortcomings have been identified, the Government absolutely should explain what went wrong; where there are recommendations, the Government must inform the House of their response. However, those of us who have been here a little while know how the House works. There are many opportunities for things to be made not exactly immediately obvious to the wider world, or even to Members of the House.

I have not been in Parliament that long, but I remember consideration of the Agriculture Bill. There was a lengthy discussion on the food security report. The matter went to the House of Lords. There was an argument about when the report should be produced—every three years, or annually, or every five years, and all the rest of it. Lo and behold, the Government produced that report on the very last day that they were permitted to do so, just before Christmas—as Governments do, of course—when people were rushing to get their planes and trains. It was a massive report of 300 pages, and obviously there was little opportunity just before Christmas for the wider world to consider it properly. What were the opportunities to consider that report? We found that it took a Westminster Hall debate, with a Minister reluctantly responding to criticisms at the end of the debate. The fact that the Secretary of State said one thing on one occasion and the Minister, when challenged, said something else, shows that there was not really any great opportunity for scrutiny.

This is a governance question. We know that, in the real world, a lot of this does not work. Given that some of the responses will be written, we know that there will not be much opportunity for scrutiny. We in the Opposition think that animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals is too important to fall into that trap and we think that, without an opportunity for the House to properly scrutinise and discuss reports, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given the attention they merit.

The amendment would require a Minister to make a motion in both Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. For the committee to have any heft, the Government cannot simply disregard its reports if they are politically or otherwise inconvenient. We think that it is right that “all due regard” be given to a range of factors and that the Government must explain how they have weighed up the competing demands.

We fully acknowledge that there are competing demands. This is not simple stuff. We also absolutely accept that the Bill does not change any existing legislation; it simply specifies that the Government must give “all due regard” to the ways in which policy may impact the welfare of animals. What we have heard from the discussions in the other place, and on Second Reading, is that that is open to a considerable amount of interpretation. It is right that both Houses debate and discuss the extent to which they believe “all due regard” has been met. I would think the Government would welcome the amendment, since it would actually give them further opportunity on their media grid to drip out some good news stories about the wonderful things they are doing. Actually, we think the opposite is the case. We do not think they want genuine scrutiny. The amendment could attract some interesting cross-party support as we goes forward.

12:30

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, Mr Walker. I believe, Sir Charles, that you were part of the Procedure Committee which created opportunities for Commons Select Committees to make statements and answer questions in the House, which is a welcome development. The amendment is sensible, as are all of the suggestions from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration; I think there is a lot to commend it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. By definition, all Opposition Front-Bench amendments are sensible—I will tell you the ones that are not later. My hon. Friend, too, brings great experience on this, and he makes an important point. Those of us who have gradually begun to understand parliamentary procedure over the process of being here know that he is right; proper consideration of Select Committee reports in the Chamber does make a real difference. That is what we are trying to get at with the amendment.

I hope, despite the nature of this debate, that Ministers will go away and think about this point. We have noticed that there are very real differences of opinion on the Conservative Benches on this issue. I think the amendment would give voice to some of the staunch critics of the Bill. I do not think some of them understand it entirely, but I think it might settle some of their concerns if they knew they had the opportunity to raise them in this way. As the Better Deal for Animals coalition said in their briefing to parliamentarians:

“Criticisms of the Bill during its passage to date appear to have been based on a misunderstanding of the role of the Animal Sentience Committee.”

Members will be surprised to hear that I am on the side of the Minister on this point, because I agree that it should be reiterated that the new Committee will not have the power to amend or bring about new legislation. It cannot compel the Government to take any particular course of action. I understand the points the Minister is making, and I am not sure that everyone who has taken part in this debate has fully appreciated that.

The amendment would provide an opportunity for Members of both Houses to provide input and scrutinise the Government’s success in weighing up competing demands and, crucially, their success in considering the sentience of animals. For the Bill to have any real impact, we believe that Members must have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response to the Animal Sentience Committee’s reports. Going back to my opening points, this could so easily be just another committee. Unless it has power, it will not work, and that would mean that sentience had not been carried across in the way that many people believed it to have been.

The amendment would only strengthen and further the claimed aims of the Bill. If the Government oppose it, I have to say that they will reveal their true intent.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for raising the matter of responses to the Animal Sentience Committee report with the amendment. I agree that the committee’s report warrants parliamentary attention. That is why Ministers will be required to lay a written response before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication. This is central to the targeted, timely and proportionate mechanism we are seeking to establish. However, the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe it would be proportionate to clog up the parliamentary timetable with an automatic debate on every single report.

Hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place should decide for themselves the extent to which each report needs more discussion. They will have the usual means at their disposal to bring in Ministers to answer questions: parliamentary questions, Select Committee hearings, Westminster Hall debates and business questions. The EFRA Committee, when looking at this particular subject, asked my noble Friend Lord Benyon to come in front of it, in order to probe him more. We should also allow for the possibility that the committee, in some of its reports, may be satisfied that the Department in question has had all due regard to animal welfare and as such makes no recommendations. I am sure that Ministers would be delighted, as the hon. Member for Cambridge slightly alluded to, to have the platform to speak about such success on the Floor of the House, but I gently say that that is not the best use of parliamentary time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That was pretty much the answer I expected, but I gently observe that, in a couple of years’ time, when the position is reversed, I suspect the Minister might not think that it clogs up the parliamentary timetable to challenge the Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 4

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause requires a Minister whose Department has been subject to an Animal Sentience Committee report to lay a written report before Parliament. The response must be submitted within three months of the publication of the report, excluding periods in which Parliament is not sitting. This will give weight to the committee reports. Ministers will not be able to ignore them. There may be occasions when Ministers do not agree with the findings and recommendations of the committee. The clause gives those Ministers the opportunity to explain their views and the reasons therein. If Members or peers are dissatisfied with the Minister’s explanation, they have the usual means at their disposal to pursue their concerns, as we discussed.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have a genuine question about the timing of introducing legislation. I think we all know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed in and is imperfect. There is obviously much to be said for taking time and seeking advice. I am concerned that the Government will propose something, then the committee has to look at it, then the Secretary of State has three months to reply. If the Government were seeking to legislate or change policy quite quickly, could this mechanism be used to drag things out far longer than they should be?

[Jo Churchill]

I would say no. The formulation and thought process of legislation feels like it takes considerable time, as we all know. This mechanism would not, in any circumstance I can envisage, be used to slow down the passage of anything.

Crucially, the committee supports Parliament’s scrutiny of Ministers without creating an undue risk of legal challenge. We learned from the EFRA Committee’s valuable feedback on the earlier version of the Bill how this is the case. Our approach means that Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, as is right and proper, and not to the courts. We feel that this creates a balanced, timely, proportionate accountability mechanism, allowing Ministers to make their own judgments on the best policy decisions to take and giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise those issues based on expert advice that comes forward, hence the reason for the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause provides for the inclusion of the Animal Sentience Committee in the list of organisations subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Animal Sentience Committee is designed to support Parliament in scrutinising the policy decision making, and it is therefore right that the committee is transparent and accountable in the way that it operates.

We have sought to balance the transparency of the committee with its effectiveness by ensuring that Government Departments can disclose information to it at early stages of policy decision making. The same checks and balances apply to the disclosure of sensitive information via the committee as to the Department with which it will work. The committee will receive dedicated secretariat support from my Department, which will assist in processing any of those Freedom of Information Act requests.

In addition to the transparency provisions in the Bill, we will ensure that the committee’s supporting documents and the minutes of the meeting are published online to aid that transparency and scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Interpretation

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 9, at end insert—

‘(6) For the purposes of section 2 (2) in this Act, “sentient beings” means a being capable of sentience, where “sentience” means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.’

This amendment would insert a definition of sentience into the Bill for purposes of reference, based on the definition included in research commissioned by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”.

The amendment would basically insert a definition of “sentient beings”, which is the phrase used in the legislation. That definition, as I have put it, is:

“‘sentient beings’ means a being capable of sentience, where ‘sentience’ means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.”

I know that other definitions might be proposed, but that definition was lifted from London School of Economics research entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”, which was commissioned by DEFRA and was part of the discussions about whether they should be included in the legislation. I am very pleased that they are now included. That is the definition that I have used.

The Minister said in speaking to clause 1 stand part that it was not usual to include definitions in the Bill, but in my experience, it is pretty common. The “Interpretation” clause states:

“In this Act ‘animal’ means”,

and goes on to define what an animal is, and it also defines “vertebrate” and “invertebrate” by referring to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, so I think it is quite common to include definitions. On Second Reading, some quite spurious points were made, and from my recollection of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, when we talked about sentience, people threw around slightly silly things. I think it would be helpful to have a definition in the Bill, and I cannot quite see what the argument against that would be.

A definition of “sentience” would give the Animal Sentience Committee an official reference point when considering the effects of legislation, and that is a good framework to work within. Without a definition, justifying decisions could prove problematic. A definition would shorten the process because the committee would not have to argue about whether an issue related to animal sentience.

I worry that sentience is sometimes seen as being just about feeling pain. Obviously, a lot of animal welfare discussions are about cruelty to animals, and that is what the public tend to focus on most, but as I have said, feeling pleasure comes back to the idea of the positive effects of things. We know from debates about caged birds and sow crates, or just about the way farm animals are kept, that animals—particularly intelligent animals such as pigs—need stimulation. It is actually very cruel to keep them somewhere where they cannot exhibit their natural behaviour.

Defining “sentience” would make it clear that the legislation is not just about stopping animals suffering pain. It is an apolitical expert decision, sourced from Government-commissioned research. The Government accepted that research when agreeing to include crustaceans, molluscs and so on in the Bill. The amendment would help the Bill and make it a better piece of legislation. I am interested to hear why the Minister does not agree.

12:44

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving the amendment, by which she asks the important question of why we are not putting in a fixed definition of “sentience”. I reiterate that this is about the positive and the negative.

Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years—the hon. Lady referred to the LSE report—and will continue to evolve. The Government approach will be led by the science. We therefore decided that we would not include a fixed definition of “sentience” in the Bill because, in the course of time, it will become out of date. As I said, for the Bill to work, it is not necessary to define “sentience” in statute. If we accept that those animals are sentient, we accept the principle supported by the Bill that their welfare needs should be properly considered in Government policy decision making, so there is no need to increase the complexity.

This is the nub of the matter: if the Animal Sentience Committee wishes to adopt a working definition of “sentience”, it will be absolutely free to do so. One of the first acts of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—a similar body, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded earlier—was to prepare its own working definition of “sentience”. So, should the committee wish to do the same, that would be a discussion for the experts to have, rather than for us in Government. I do not think that any of us would say that we are experts in defining; it is for the committee to choose.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the Minister for mentioning the SAWC’s definition of “sentience”. She is correct that that happened in the early days after its formation. Will she require that of the committee? Will that be something to be discussed and required of the committee when it sits in future?

[Jo Churchill]

I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Scottish Government determined that that should be one of the SAWC’s first acts. I reiterate: it should be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to do the same and to have a working definition. The whole tenor of the Bill is to be future-proofed.

[Grahame Morris]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. Had you sat down, Minister?

[Jo Churchill]

I apologise, I did not see the hon. Gentleman.

[Grahame Morris]

I was caught on the horns of a dilemma there, because the Minister was answering the earlier intervention. I apologise if I missed this in the explanatory notes, but do we have any information on the composition of the committee, on the nature of the people, individuals or expert opinions who will make up the committee?

[Jo Churchill]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of reference. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about its make-up, nor do we want to be over-prescriptive in case, for example, experts were to come from the devolved nations. This is an expert committee to give sound scientific advice on which Ministers will make a decision. That is referred to clearly in the terms of reference.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is an illogical argument. If we were to follow that through, there would be no point having amended the Bill to incorporate the recommendations of the report. It would have been easy to say, “The committee are the experts, they can decide whether molluscs and crustaceans are sentient beings.” We put things in legislation to steer the agenda of the committee. That is the very point.

I worry that the committee will be open to challenge. We saw misinformed hostility from many quarters on Second Reading, and I would have thought that the Government could solidify the fact that the committee is there to look at things other than just overt instances of animal cruelty. It would really help the experts on the committee to do their job if we were to define sentience in the Bill, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

And we will get to that, but before we do, I think the official Opposition would like to comment briefly.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who made an excellent speech that clearly and articulately explained how important the definition is and why the amendment is so important. The definition is the key to understanding the whole Bill and how the committee will work. I vividly remember the proceedings on the Environment Bill, when we were told, “Don’t worry; the explanatory notes will explain all.” However, that is not the same as legislation. Explanatory notes are separate, which is why the Opposition are so keen to have the definition enshrined in the legislation. That is why we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 5

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Grahame Morris]

On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am sorry if I am asking an obvious question, but when the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith says “no vote”, is that recorded as a positive abstention?

[The Chair]

It is recorded as exactly what it is. The hon. Lady could say “abstention”, for example, but it is not recorded. It does not appear in the record.

Thank you, Mr Morris, for the point of order—it was a genuine point of order and required an answer. That was actually the first one I have had in 11 years, so thank you, Ms Brock, as well.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause sets out what types of animals are covered by the provisions of the Bill and are thus subject to consideration by the Animal Sentience Committee. It covers any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. The science is clear that vertebrate animals—those with a spine—can experience pain and suffering.

Furthermore, in 2020, my Department commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters, and in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. There has been much scientific interest in the sentience of such creatures for a number of years, because they are unusual among invertebrates in having complex nervous systems—one of the prerequisites of sentience. The review considered some 300 pieces of research, applying a robust set of criteria to reach its conclusions. On publishing the review’s findings last October, we accepted its central recommendation that, given the strong evidence of such creatures’ sentience, they should be included in the legislation.

We tabled an amendment to the clause in the other place, and we are pleased that it enjoyed cross-party support. However, we know that there is new scientific evidence emerging all the time, which is why we have sought to future-proof the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add species to the definition of animals by regulations, using an affirmative statutory instrument. Such a measure would be based on scientific evidence that particular species of invertebrates are sentient.

We have no plans to use the delegated power in the near future. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was the subject of considerable scientific research over many years, and we are not expecting compelling evidence on other species to emerge overnight. However, it is important to be able to keep the Bill’s scope up to date, in line with scientific developments.

Ministers will not be able to amend the Bill’s scope on a whim. Regulations laid under the delegated power would be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, and Parliament would rightly expect more compelling scientific evidence to be brought forward to justify any extension. If it were not convinced, Parliament would be able to vote down the regulations.

The clause therefore sets the scope of the Bill to cover creatures for which there is strong scientific evidence of sentience, and it includes a delegated power to keep the scope up to date with emerging evidence, subject to sensible checks and balances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (5).—(Jo Churchill.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause sets out the territorial extent and the commencement provisions for the Bill following Royal Assent. Clause 2(6) provides that the Animal Sentience Committee may only issue reports on policy decisions of the UK Government. That means that the committee may issue a report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible. The committee cannot issue a report on any policy that relates to a legislative provision falling within a devolved competence. Animal welfare policy is devolved. The Bill’s provisions will come into force on such days as the Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, appoint.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Duty to prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy.

(2) The Strategy under paragraph (1) must set out how Her Majesty’s Government plans to have regard to animal sentience including plans to—

(a) respond to Animal Sentience Committee reports,

(b) require animal welfare impact assessments, and

(c) commission independent research.

(3) The Strategy must set out policies that the Secretary of State may ask the Animal Sentience Committee to review.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on progress on the Animal Sentience Strategy.

(5) An annual statement under subsection (4) must include a summary of changes in policy or implementation that have occurred in response to an Animal Sentience Committee report over the last 12 months.

(6) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to the annual statement.

(7) The Secretary of State must publish a revised Animal Sentience Strategy at the start of each parliament.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy, and to provide an annual update to Parliament on progress against it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is tabled in my name and those of many of my colleagues. In many ways, I will go back to where I started, by referring to the comments by my colleague in the other place, Baroness Hayman. She explained very lucidly that the Bill in its current form provides

“a weaker set of responsibilities”

than provided for in EU law and

“effectively outsources the bulk of animal sentience responsibility to the committee, which can make recommendations to decision-makers but sits outside the decision-making process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC285.]

That is an important point, which we have already referenced, and I believe that it should be heard loud and clear—put up in lights, in fact. The Conservatives have weakened the law on animal sentience. [Interruption.] They may not like it, but it is the truth.

Now, there is a solution—there is salvation, and I am going to offer it. The amendment tabled by Labour in the other place goes some way towards rectifying that problem. Again, as Baroness Hayman explained,

“Article 13 imposed a direct legal obligation on the EU and its member states to pay full regard to animal sentience. It was a direct responsibility on decision-makers, in the form of government Ministers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC284.]

I have already described how the Bill is weakened by the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide written responses to Animal Sentience Committee reports rather than oral responses. The Government chose not to take that opportunity.

The Bill places indirect responsibilities on Ministers; they must simply establish and maintain a committee and lay written responses, rather than assuming direct responsibilities on these matters, which is what we would like to see. This is clearly an inadequate replacement for the duties and responsibilities enshrined in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and that is what we seek to address through the new clause.

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy and to provide annual updates to Parliament on progress against it. It would significantly improve the Bill by increasing the heft given to the Animal Sentience Committee and ensuring that its work does not, as I fear it might, end up being merely symbolic.

13:00

If the Government cared as deeply about animal sentience as they claim, they would join us in setting out this fully formed strategy. Not only would a strategy provide guidance and direction for the Animal Sentience Committee, as my hon. and good Friend the Member for Bristol East suggests, but the committee would hold Ministers to account much more robustly than the Bill currently provides for. Under the current weak proposals, the Government “respond” to the committee’s reports, and in those responses, all they can do is express contentions or commitments to future policy formulation and implementation. As I have already spelled out, there is no mechanism for Parliament to hold the Government to account in this respect. Annual reporting on an overarching strategy, progress against which could be debated properly in Parliament, would at least provide for that.

As I mentioned, we are aware that some Government Members are critical of the Bill. I suspect that they were not invited by the Whips to join this Committee, but they are still out there. I hope that, on Report, they might notice and be attracted by some of our propositions. Annual reporting would provide opportunities for parliamentarians to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the Animal Sentience Committee and to debate the issues more widely.

I think we can all agree that these are complicated and intricate matters; they are sensitive and important as well. We are talking about the ability to feel pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the most up-to-date scientific findings are incorporated in the Government’s decisions. Much of the confusion could be avoided if the Government were able to commission more independent research in this area, and the new clause would strengthen that ability. I encourage Government Members to think seriously about supporting our amendment.

[Jo Churchill]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for proposing new clause 1, that while I agree that the Bill should be science-led, he will not be surprised that I disagree entirely that we are watering down anything. Given that we are robustly discussing animal sentience, how seriously the issue is taken in this place could not be plainer to the outside word.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman might want to require the Secretary of State to publish an animal sentience strategy and undertake the actions associated with it, but the Bill underpins the action plan for animal welfare published in May last year. Of course the Government want the new committee to perform its role to the best of its ability, and we will work with Members to ensure that it does just that, but the independence of that committee is vital. A strategy in which Ministers set out policies that they want the committee to consider would limit its ability to set its own agenda. It is vital to make sure that the committee is led by science and by experts, and that it has its own ability to define sentience, if it wishes to, and to set its own agenda.

The committee’s reports will be publicly available and will provide a record of policies that it has considered. As is usual, the committee will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act, as laid out in clause 4. Rather than prescribe a list of tasks for the committee, we want to ensure that it can shape its role in an independent manner, and that its influence in highlighting the impact on animal welfare of key policy decisions is maximised and determined by its own evaluation of where it could add value. DEFRA will support the committee in identifying such opportunities, but it is important that experts have that scope.

We do not propose to require Government Departments to produce animal welfare impact assessments, but my Department is committed to working with its counterparts across the Government to develop the right tools to assess the effect of policy decisions on animal welfare so that there is a cohesive look at that matter. Departments will have good reason to engage with the process as that will help to prevent the committee from producing negative reports, as well as aiding learning across the Government. The Bill as drafted, alongside the action plan for animal welfare, will achieve many of the intentions of the new clause while retaining the committee’s flexibility and discretion to focus on the areas that it deems most important.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will respond briefly, as you would encourage me to do, Sir Charles.

I listened closely to the Minister’s response, and while I struggled with some of the civil service gobbledegook, I think she said that some of the things that we are looking to achieve will happen, which we welcome. In the end, however, I can come to no conclusion but that this is a weak proposition. I have asked the Minister three times why the Government did not choose to bring across the stronger version of the legislation—goodness me, they brought plenty of other legislation across—but that has not been explained, and there must be a reason. The Minister also has not been able to answer the question of where sentience currently stands, so the only conclusion we can come to is that the Bill needs to be beefed up and made much stronger. I can assure you, Sir Charles, that in a couple of years’ time, it will be.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 6

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[The Chair]

I just want to tell new colleagues what the Clerk’s note reads: “At this point, Members may wish to raise bogus points of order or debate the Question in order to raise issues concerning proceedings of the Bill, to thank officials, etc. This is permissible within reason as long as the final Question on report is put and agreed to.”

Would anyone like to say nice things about officials? I will thank my Clerk, the Hansard writers and, of course, the Doorkeepers for their outstanding service.

[Nickie Aiken]

May I share your sentiments, Sir Charles, and say thank you to our parliamentary staff here and across the estate?

[Jo Churchill]

I add my voice to that, but I would also like to thank my Bill team and members of my private office, who are nothing but always by my side, for which I thank them.

[Deidre Brock]

Many thanks to the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, and to Hansard for taking down our words today.

[The Chair]

And, I suspect, last but not least—shadow Minister Ruth Jones.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles; I am not going to miss this opportunity.

I echo the thanks that have been given, and I would also like to place on record our thanks to our staff. The Bill has been interestingly timetabled, and we have been working under pressure, so it has been useful to have our staff so on board. I also thank you, Sir Charles, for your excellent chairing.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

13:09

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

AWSB01 RSPCA

AWSB02 Compassion in World Farming

AWSB03 Better Deal for Animals coalition

AWSB04 Crustacean Compassion

AWSB05 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust

AWSB06 Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

Access to NHS Dentistry

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks. There is clearly a lot of interest in the debate. We will work out roughly how long people have to speak, but I do not intend to impose a strict time limit, unless people abuse the timings. We will give you an indication of how long to speak for, and if you could roughly stick to it that would be really helpful. I call Peter Aldous to move the motion.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for her work in helping to secure it.

NHS dentistry has been the No. 1 issue in my inbox for the past nine to 10 months. This is a national crisis, though the problem in my constituency—in Lowestoft and Waveney—is acute. Dentists have retired, which has led to resources and dental capacity being taken away from the area, notwithstanding the increased need and demand following the pandemic. Many of the remaining practices are experiencing difficulties in recruiting and retaining dentists, and the situation has been exacerbated by a lack of funding, with net Government spending on general dental practice being reduced by a third over the past decade. That said, the overall situation locally has improved since I first raised concerns in an Adjournment debate on 25 May last year, and I will outline the improvements later. They are welcome, but I am concerned that they might be a short-term sticking plaster and might not provide a long-term solution.

As we emerge from covid, the situation both locally and nationally has reached crisis point. Locally, that is due to covid, as well as retirements in two NHS dental practices in Lowestoft and the closure of the mydentist practice in Leiston, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). That practice closed due to the difficulty of recruiting dentists to work in the NHS in the area—a theme that is repeated across the country.

Access to NHS dentistry is a problem that has been brewing for a long time. The situation can be likened to a house built on shallow and poor foundations. The earthquake of covid has led to that house falling down. There are now parts of the country—particularly in, though not confined to, rural and coastal areas—that are dental deserts.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. On that point, my constituents in the city of Birmingham have hugely suffered through the covid. People like myself, who suffer from diabetes, have had huge issues with dental treatment. I hope that we can move forward and return to treating people in the best way possible.

[Peter Aldous]

While there are particular problems in rural, coastal and more peripheral locations, which it is difficult to get dentists to move to, it is clear from looking around the Chamber today that the problem is not confined to such areas and is an issue in metropolitan areas as well. Sir Robert Francis, chair of Healthwatch England, has commented:

“Every part of the country is facing a dental care crisis, with NHS dentistry at risk of vanishing into the void.”

I believe there are five issues that need to be tackled to address the problem. First, a secure, long-term funding stream must be provided. Secondly, we need to step up the recruitment and retention of dental professionals. Thirdly, it is vital that work on the new NHS dental contract, which has been being developed for more than a decade, is completed as soon as practically possible. Fourthly, it is important to highlight the role that water fluoridation can play. Finally, there is a need for greater accountability and for dentistry to have a voice in the emerging integrated care boards and partnerships.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Another point that needs developing is that in Helmsley, in my constituency, the commissioners have still not recommissioned services after 20 months. The commissioning of dental services by the NHS is simply too slow and too bureaucratic. It is a real deterrent for new dentists to take these contracts.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. There has been a recent procurement process in East Anglia, but it has been only half successful. There are places that have not been able to get dentists to fill those voids.

Figures published in March 2020, before the pandemic, show that 25% of patients new to practices in England could not get an appointment. The situation has got worse: the most recent figures, from 2021, show that that number has increased to 44%; in my area, it is 56%. Dentistry was locked down from March to June 2020 and the ongoing restrictions on dentists—fallow time between appointments—are still limiting the ability to see more patients.

The latest figures on workforce, published in August 2021, show that 951 fewer dentists performed NHS dental activity than 12 months earlier, with 174 of those losses in the east of England. Those figures confirm that parts of England are becoming dental deserts; beyond Suffolk and Norfolk, that includes the east Yorkshire coastline, Cornwall, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.

The lack of access to NHS dentistry has a fivefold impact on patients. First, millions are missing appointments. Secondly, there has been a significant increase in DIY tooth extraction. Thirdly, the poor are hit hardest. Fourthly, mouth cancers are going undiagnosed. Finally, children are suffering. This very serious situation has been confirmed by the “Great British Oral Health Report” carried out by mydentist.

I apologise for going on at length, Mr Efford, but it is important to emphasis the crisis we are facing. I will now briefly outline some of the solutions. The first issue that must be tackled is getting more dentists and dental practitioners working in the NHS. The Association of Dental Groups has put forward its “six to fix” proposals for solving the workforce crisis, which I will summarise. First, we need to increase the number of training places in the UK. That is a long-term measure. Secondly, in the short term, the Government should continue to recognise EU-trained dentists. Thirdly, there needs to be a recognition of other overseas qualifications. We have an opportunity to make more of our links with Commonwealth countries such as India, which has a surplus of highly skilled English-speaking trained dentists.

Fourthly, the process for overseas dentists to complete the performers list validation by experience—or PLVE—so that they can practise in the NHS must be simplified and sped up. Fifthly, whole teams in dental practices should be allowed to initiate treatments. The largest barrier to better use of the skills mix under the current NHS contractual arrangements is that allied dental professionals are unable to open a course of treatment, which means they cannot raise a claim for payment for work delivered.

Finally, the Government must create a new strategy for NHS workforce retention. The current contract through which NHS dentistry is provided was introduced in 2006 and for some time it has been widely recognised as not being fit for purpose. It is a major driver of dentists leaving NHS dentistry. Reforming the NHS contract is needed to deliver better access and preventive care so as to improve the nation’s oral health. Flexible commissioning, aimed at increasing access to vulnerable groups such as those in care homes should be an important part of the reform. The current dental contract is target-based, and it was accepted before the pandemic that it needed to be reformed. We must complete that reform as soon as possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to progress on that and when we might see a new contract.

It is important that NHS dentistry receives a sustainable long-term financial settlement and not a short-term fix. Additional funding is vital if long-term and sustainable improvements to NHS dentistry are to be secured. The pledge of £50 million on 25 January for a dentistry treatment blitz is welcome, and £5.73 million is available to the east of England. However, that is a time-limited one-off injection of funding that is available only until the end of March, and there is a concern that it will barely make a dent in the unprecedented backlogs that NHS dentistry now faces. The British Dental Association estimates that it would take £880 million per annum to restore dental budgets to 2010 levels.

Since my Adjournment debate on NHS dentistry in Waveney last May, there have been improvements to the local service, which it is important to acknowledge. A temporary contract was awarded to a Lowestoft-based NHS dentist to see additional patients, which has definitely helped prevent the situation from getting any worse. Tomorrow I shall be with Community Dental Services, which along with Leading Lives, a Suffolk-based not-for-profit social enterprise, is launching its toolkit to help improve the oral health of people with learning difficulties. It is also good news that from 1 July a contract has been awarded to Apps Smiles for the delivery of NHS dentistry in Lowestoft, but it is concerning that it was not possible to do that in nearby Leiston and across the border in Norfolk, in Fakenham and Thetford. It will be interesting to receive further details as to why that happened, but one can speculate dentists might not have been interested in those opportunities and might have been put off by the existing, unattractive contract.

I have concerns about the procurement process that go back a long time. I am concerned that it does not encourage traditional partnerships to put forward proposals. I urge the Minister to carry out a whole review of the procurement process.

A vital strand of NHS dentistry should be the prevention of oral health challenges—prevention rather treatment. Fluoridation of water supplies can play a vital role in that, so it is welcome that the Health and Care Bill allows for it. There is also a need for greater accountability.

[Mr Mahmood]

I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman twice, but I just want to make the point that John Charlton, with Severn Trent Water, has worked on getting fluoridation in water for the past 30 years. We should pay tribute to him for the great work that he has done.

[Peter Aldous]

I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman intervened on me, because Birmingham is the model of how to do this. As a Birmingham MP, it is right that he highlights that, and I thank him for it.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

As I will set out in my speech, my father was an NHS dentist for 23 years. He trained a long time ago in Manchester, and he told me that the advent of sugary foods and drinks had had an enormously detrimental effect on children’s teeth over the years. The one thing we can do to solve that problem is fluoridation of our waterstream. It has made such a difference, and I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for raising that point.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising that.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Birmingham is an interesting case. Not all of Birmingham is fluoridated, so when a child arrives, dentists can tell which part of Birmingham they have come from. No cavities, no fillings—fluoridated. Fillings and cavities—non-fluoridated.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for re-emphasising that case.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way so many times.

There is another point that ought to be mentioned here. As far as I am aware—I hope my hon. Friend can confirm this—no detrimental effects from fluoridation have yet been found anywhere, and we ought to scotch any rumours to the effect that they have.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I should just point out that a number of Members who have their names down to speak are intervening. To respect others who want to speak, could you please refrain.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful because, with those four interventions, we have re-emphasised the importance of fluoridation.

There is a need for greater accountability, and the Health and Care Bill can provide the framework within which that can be secured. It is welcome that the commissioning of dentistry is set to move to integrated care systems. That can make for a more transparent system, but there is a risk that dentistry and its impact on overall health could be overlooked in the integrated care proposals. It is important that dentists are properly represented on integrated care system boards.

At Report stage of the Health and Care Bill, I tabled new clause 18, which called on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on access to NHS dentistry, to collect data on the length of waiting times for primary dental care treatment and, if necessary, to take action. The Minister for Health declined to accept the new clause. I do not know whether a similar clause will be introduced in the other place. If it is, I would urge the Government to give it serious consideration. Such a reporting mechanism can drive sustainable and meaningful improvement in access to NHS dentistry.

Mr Efford, you will be delighted to learn that I am coming to a conclusion. Tackling access for NHS dentistry, which has been neglected for 15 years, is an opportunity that we must grasp in order to demonstrate the levelling up of healthcare right across the UK. We must put in place an NHS dentistry system that is fit for the 21st century, instead of reversing into the 19th century.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. It looks like we have six minutes each for Back-Bench speeches. If anyone can deliver their speech in less time, it would be very helpful.

13:47

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), with whom I co-sponsored today’s debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting valuable time for this valuable debate.

I have spoken many times in this place about my serious concerns about the state of NHS dentistry in England. Covid has had a devastating impact on our NHS dental services. According to the British Dental Association, it has caused more than 40 million NHS dental appointments to be lost since the start of the pandemic, which amounts to a whole year’s worth of dentistry in pre-covid times—a year’s worth of dentist appointments lost to the people and the system. Even before covid began, enough dentistry was commissioned for only half the adult population in England to see an NHS dentist just once every two years. With capacity now even more severely limited by covid, access problems have reached an unprecedented scale in every community, with existing inequalities in access and outcomes widening even further.

I received a briefing from Bupa, which tells me that across its 306 practices with an NHS contract in England it has a growing number of loss-making sites. It points out that these NHS practices would not be sustainable if they were independent—they are kept afloat by Bupa’s private practices. To be clear, that is private healthcare subsidising the NHS. The current dental contracts make dentists’ work highly stressful and do not allow them to provide the quality of care that they want to provide for their patients. According to the BDA’s surveys, that is the No. 1 reason why dentists are leaving the NHS or reducing the amount of work they do in it.

Only last week, I spoke to the owner of a dental practice in my constituency—he is my dentist—who told me that he has just learned that one of his dentists is leaving NHS practice to move to private dentistry. He also told me that the recent £50 million funding announcement for urgent dental care is virtually unusable, as it requires either persuading an already overstretched workforce to work overtime or recruiting new staff or hiring expensive locums—all of which has to be delivered by March 2022. It is just unworkable.

Bupa said the same about the funding package. To qualify for the funds, dentists must first have met their NHS contract thresholds, a system that excludes practices that have dealt with large numbers of patients with urgent needs, or faced higher staff and patient sickness, or who have struggled to recruit staff who are prepared to do NHS work. Only 134 of Bupa’s 306 practices were eligible under the criteria. Of those 134, only two so far have felt able to take up the extra funding.

It is clear that this funding package is not new funding—it is drawn from the £169 million that was clawed back from contract holders in 2020-21 for not meeting contractual targets. In my view, clawback is a failure of the system. It is not a failure of the NHS to spend money allocated through budgets but a failure to properly target resources to where they are needed, such as in my constituency in Bradford South and in the district of Bradford. The Government should not expect applause for creating a pot of funding for urgent care that simply cannot be spent in the time allocated, or in the areas where it is needed most, because of the strings that have been attached.

The BDA estimates that it would take £880 million per year just to restore NHS dental budgets back to 2010 levels. Chronic underfunding and the current contract are to blame for the long-standing problems with burnout, recruitment and retention in NHS dental services, with almost a thousand dentists leaving the NHS in England in the last financial year.

I know that the Minister is committed to reform, but I stress the urgency of this work. The Minister said earlier this week that the Government had

“started work on dental contract reform.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 780.]

The process has been under way since 2011. It is simply no longer good enough to say, “We’re working on it.”

I urge the Minister to commit today to a firm date when dentists will see the end of units of dental activity and a better contract, focused on prevention and increasing access. That needs to be rolled out now, as the targets set in the current contract are leading to the wrong outcomes. Unless what the Government are seeking is the ultimate demise of NHS dentistry, we really need to see a change in the contract. NHS dentistry was in trouble before covid-19 and is now facing an emergency.

In Bradford, almost 1,000 children under the age of 10 had to be admitted to hospital to have decayed teeth removed under a general anaesthetic in 2019-20. Thousands of children in Bradford and across the country are waiting in pain, taking painkillers and potentially multiple rounds of avoidable antibiotics to control their infection while they await surgery. No figures for the size and length of waiting lists for hospital tooth extractions in children or vulnerable adults are currently collected, but I am told that people are routinely waiting as long as two to three years—that is two to three years in acute pain. I hope that the Minister will touch on this issue in her response and explain why data on this crucial service for some of the most vulnerable people in our society is not routinely monitored and collected.

The lack of access to NHS dentistry is impacting some regions more than others. Yorkshire and the Humber is currently the worst performing area in terms of child oral health, with more than one in seven children in the region suffering from decay by the time they are just three years old. That is more than double the rate in the east of England, where only one in 15 children are affected by that age. According to a recent survey by mydentist, nearly 10% more people were able to access routine dentistry in the south of England than in the north.

Since the current Government took office, their unspoken policy has been to rely increasingly on rapidly rising patient fees while they drastically cut Government funding for dental services. Net funding to NHS dentistry fell by around one third in real terms in the last decade. An acceptable level of access can be secured only by prolonged and serious commitment, and proper, long-term funding to and for NHS dentistry. We need, in essence, a new deal that treats dentistry as an equal member of the NHS family, not a Cinderella service. I ask the Government to commit to a properly funded all-age NHS service.

However, I believe that we can and must go further. We must work to achieve a fully-funded dentistry service, with NHS dentistry available to all. As the chair of Healthwatch England, Sir Robert Francis, QC, said:

“We won’t build back a fairer service until access to NHS dentistry is equal and inclusive for everyone.”

I agree with Healthwatch, and believe that the guiding principle in NHS dentistry must be that good oral health must not be restricted by either postcode or wealth.

00:00

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I agree with Sir Robert Francis and with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I also agree with, and am grateful to, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

Mr Efford, I would just clear my throat by saying that I am only Father of the House because of 1992, so I pay tribute to you for your part in my still being here. I would also say that, after Stephen Lawrence was attacked, I did the right thing in going to see the Commissioner of Police, but I also did not do the right thing; I should have gone with you to ask the Home Secretary for an inquiry into the attack. I pay you public tribute for that, and I shall forever be grateful that you did what I had not done.

I hope that the Minister has met the Toothless campaigners, Mark Jones and Steve Marsling, who have given some of us leaflets spelling out some of the things that are required.

With the participation of patients, we ought to be able to get this right. It needs dealing with, first as an emergency, then in the medium and long term. Fluoridation should not be delayed, but the beneficial impact will come later. Getting more dentists through training and getting more well-qualified dentists from overseas will help in the medium term, but the emergency goes beyond the end of March this year.

I will send to the Minister the letter that I received on 10 February from NHS England and NHS Improvement about the situation. It is a well-meaning letter, but it does not deal with the problem, as she will know, because, on the south coast, we face the same problems as in East Anglia and in Yorkshire—and throughout the country, for that matter.

We know the impact that covid had in reducing the number of sessions that were possible, with the space required between treatments, but as the hon. Member for Bradford South said, it is not just about covid; the problems were there before. I take the view that the general practitioners contract in 2006 was wrong; the dentistry contract was wrong. Those watching this debate may hear about UDAs—units of dental activity. Why is it that one filling attracts three UDAs, and yet five fillings, a root canal and an extraction get the same?

I am grateful to those dentists who have written to me, many of whom are doctors. One says:

“I spend around 40-50% of my time on NHS work (clinical and non-clinical) but it only accounts for around 10% of my income.”

My mother used to explain to me that young dentists would take on a lot of NHS work and work really hard and intensively, then, as they grew through middle age and towards their last 10 or 15 years, they would go more private and have more time, and others would come up and take over their work. There would be a sort of succeeding life cycle of dental activity.

I am not against private dental treatments and attention, but I do not believe that it should be required. People ought to have the option of NHS treatment. My wife and I always used that for our family, until we were a bit older, and others should be able to do the same. We need a system in which anybody who asks for an NHS examination can get one, without significant delay.

One dentist talks about an awful lot of time spent on data capture for the NHS Business Services Authority—at least it is one; it was combined from five other bodies. It is important that the amount of admin that dentists complete be reduced as far as possible.

Those practices that still provide NHS dentistry try to continue with their contract but say that they are unable to take on new patients due to UDA limits. They get many calls a day from people saying that they cannot get care because their practice no longer accepts NHS patients. That has to change, and it has to change fast.

Another of my dentists has sent me some pretty clear figures. They say that they cannot find the 1.5 to 2 full-time-equivalent dentists that they need to recruit. They also bring up the issue of training and the flawed contract, and note that contract reform has been promised by every Government since the current contract was introduced in 2006.

We cannot delay any longer. Even if it were just an interim contract, that would provide an incentive, money, encouragement, recognition and a change to patients’ circumstances. As has been said, many more things need to be done.

I have found the British Dental Association to be very co-operative and positive, acting in the interests of patients and of its members as clinicians and as businesses.

Let us try to get people together and take an urgent approach. And when we meet in six months’ time, let us be able to say that significant improvements have been made and that more are coming. Then, perhaps in three or four years’ time, we will not have to have these discussions.

14:01

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate.

We urgently need to find a long-term, sustainable solution to the crisis that NHS dentistry faces. Covid has been tough on it, but the trouble did not start in March 2020. Parveen Kapoor, a dentist working in my constituency, is at his wits’ end. His surgery is inundated with patients, many of whom have not been able to see a dentist for years. In his words:

“Covid made a bad situation even worse.”

Parveen is so proud of the work that he and his colleagues do. He cares so deeply about his patients. However, as he says,

“we are a caring profession, but the crisis is making offering our patients the care we need difficult, and it won’t take much more to make it impossible.”

A long-term solution starts with making NHS dentistry a place where people want to work. We also need to see a reshaping of NHS dentistry that ensures that patients can access surgeries and that prevention is effectively prioritised.

Over the past decade, both staff and patients have suffered the consequences of chronic underfunding. NHS dentistry has suffered unprecedented cuts not seen elsewhere in the NHS, with net Government spending on general dental practice in England cut by about a third in the past decade. This crisis is a result of Government choices.

Contracts are failing while staff suffer burnout, and dental practices struggle to navigate recruitment and staff retention. The British Dental Association’s general dental practice committee chairman has described NHS dentistry as “hanging by a thread”. Close to 1,000 dentists left the NHS in England alone in the last financial year. Morale is at an all-time low, as dentists turn to private practice, opt for early retirement and seek career changes.

As a result, communities across the UK face alarming access problems. Pre-pandemic, Healthwatch England concluded that 85% of dental practices were closed to new adult patients. The situation was exacerbated by the pandemic; a full year’s worth of appointments were lost between April 2020 and December 2021. Dentists still see only a fraction of the number of patients they usually see due to social distancing measures and underfunded efforts to improve ventilation. This has lasting consequences for our communities.

Good oral health is essential to general health and wellbeing. Oral health inequality is widening, while patients turn to dangerous DIY dentistry. Despite ongoing restrictions related to the pandemic, NHS dentistry in England continues to suffer the consequences of harsh funding cuts. Surgeries in England have been set extreme targets, or have to pay back funding; they are overstretched and struggling. Dentistry should be treated not simply as an afterthought but as a central pillar in upcoming reforms of the healthcare system. We need sustainable, long-term action focused on prevention before it is too late.

A sector that is key for health has borne the brunt of austerity cuts. One-off investments, such as the Government’s £50 million so-called dentistry treatment blitz last month, are not enough. The treatment blitz barely made a dent in unprecedented backlogs and runs the risk of further overwhelming pressurised practices and staff. This Government, in office for 11 years, have created this crisis in dentistry. I hope the Minister will take steps to resolve it.

14:06

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), although I did not agree with the premise of his argument. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. He and other hon. Members have mentioned a number of problems. I do not mean to reiterate any, but I will add one issue for consideration by the Minister: infrastructure first, and the pressure of additional housing development. House building in my constituency is at five times the national average. That is not only disruptive to our natural environment but means that people cannot access their GP, a school place or a dentist. Maybe she can address that.

I wanted to speak for a number of reasons. One thing I put on the record—many colleagues will have had this—is that a number of dentists contacted me through lockdown desperately wanting to serve and provide services. They found it exceptionally difficult to be able to do that. They literally knew that there was a growing problem, and they wanted to serve. I thank dentists in my constituency, as I am sure do all Members, for their efforts during the period of covid. In addition to infrastructure first, I would like to hear from the Minister specifically how we are going to address the difference between registration for a service and actually accessing a service. It seems that there is a problem in the contracting around that at the moment.

Where I perhaps disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, who just left his place, is that I think we have to control taxpayer support for dentistry. Public finances are stretched and have been for considerable time—in my time as a Member of Parliament, both currently and during my time as the Member for Bedford. We have tried to deal with some aspects of excessive public expenditure. We have record debt. We have record levels of taxation. It is a fantasy for Members of Parliament to come here or to the Chamber time after time and say how wonderful it would be to spend more money on whatever is the topic of the day. In that way lies financial ruin. The Labour party has no answer to that. We need to find creative solutions to use existing levels of expenditure more wisely than currently.

On the way dentistry contracts work, as the British Dental Association and others have shown, there is plenty of scope for spending existing resources more efficiently and more effectively, by looking at a better form of contract than drill and fill or by looking at preventive dentistry, rather than reacting once problems have occurred. I was amazed to see—I do not know whether other colleagues have seen this; I am not sure I read it right—that one of the main reasons for young people ending up in A&E right now is tooth decay. How on earth did we get into that situation? There must be a better way for us to spend resources if that is the result those resources are having.

May I also make a point about recruiting people into dentistry? I supported Brexit and I support the Home Secretary’s points-based immigration system. What on earth are we doing to ensure that we have an adequate supply of people from across the world? My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about people coming from the Commonwealth. I do not mind where they come from. I want the best and brightest to come to this country. How can we eliminate some of the restrictive practices to ensure that we make that an interesting and attractive option?

Finally, I will make a point about the contract. One issue in our health services is that most contracting is done, in essence, through what I would call production contracts between a producer and the state for how taxpayers’ money should be allocated. However, there are other ways to do that, such as by putting the power of the money with the consumer. We started to do that in elder care through personal budgets, and I know that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), has a lot of experience in care, so she might address that issue, too.

Can we find a new way to contract with our dentists that empowers consumers with the financial resources that are to be spent, so that they can choose where to use the money? They could have competitive pricing from dentists, rather than every particular production item in dentistry having a particular price, with all the frailties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, with one filling versus the whole thing ending up at the same production price. If we empower people through the budget, that might be a better way to approach any change to our contracts, rather than just rehashing another producer contract for dentistry.

14:11

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this important debate. Lots of important points have been made about the situation nationally and about the contract, and some solutions have been offered.

I will use the short time available to pay tribute to Healthwatch Richmond, which back in the 2020 was the very first Healthwatch in the whole network to express concerns about dentistry. It was the first to produce a report on it, which prompted Healthwatch England and various local Healthwatches to do so. I pay tribute to Healthwatch Richmond’s lobbying of Healthwatch England and NHS England for bringing us to the point where we have the information to hand and can put pressure on NHS England and on Ministers. I thank Mike Derry for his work.

I also want to give a voice to my constituents. Yes, the London Borough of Richmond is a relatively affluent borough. That does not mean that there is not need and that everyone can afford to go to a private dentist. Our borough has the lowest funding for NHS dentistry in London, apart from the City of London, and the Healthwatch Richmond survey found that less than half of those seeking NHS care could get a routine appointment. One in three could not even access urgent or emergency care; private patients were 16 times more likely to be able to access treatment. Clearly, the problem is not with the supply of dentists, because those who needed to get treatment, if they are able and willing to pay, could access care in the space of a week. Hundreds of others, however, could not access such care.

I want to bring two or three examples to light. Only last month, a resident of Hampton wrote to me. She is a full-time carer for her daughter and they both have special needs. She was tearing her hair out, because she had phoned scores of NHS dental practices but no one would take her daughter. She said:

“I have to use my disability money and my heating money and food money to pay £700.00 to help my daughter. I even wanted my dental practice to give my daughter my place at the practice as she is in so much pain.”

They have various special needs and are concerned, as so many are, about the cost of living crisis—she has heating bills and food bills, but here she is having to pay for care.

Another recently retired individual, whose income dropped significantly in retirement, said that they ended up paying

“£1000 for x-rays and the 30 second removal of the implant! The second dentist I went to in Twickenham quoted me £6k for removal of a wobbly tooth and replacement”.

That is simply not affordable, and it is unfair to say that affluent boroughs such as Richmond do not need additional NHS provision. There are countless more stories. As we have heard, prevention is important. Another resident who wrote to me eventually ended up getting referred to hospital for emergency treatment months after they should have been treated.

I have sympathy for the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that, clearly, there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayer cash allowing everybody as much NHS treatment as they need all the time. We know it is a false economy to restrict NHS access because people are, as he pointed out, ending up in A&E and with far worse problems down the line, which costs the NHS a lot of money.

I agree with what the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), said about everybody being entitled to NHS care. I know the Minister will talk about the recent £50 million injection of cash into NHS dentistry, but that will offer just 350,000 appointments. Nine million children missed dental appointments in the year following the first lockdown. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a minimum standard of service, with a personal dental plan that helps people to understand how frequently they need a check-up, gives them good advice on looking after their teeth and, critically, includes access to an NHS dentist. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to my constituents and millions of others around the country who cannot access the care that they need.

14:16

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his leadership on the issue. I pay tribute to my everyone at my local dentist for the work that they do—the technicians, the hygienist and the staff in both the private and NHS practices. I particularly pay tribute to them for everything they tried to do during the pandemic, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Let us be under no illusion about the importance of dental health. It is not some cosmetic thing. The science shows that the health of our teeth and gums is integral to our overall health. Gum disease is linked to strokes, diabetes and heart disease, so the health of our teeth really matters. The Government spend more than £3 billion a year on NHS dentistry, including around £500 million in my own region of the south-east. Why does it feel, from all the conversations we have had, that that part of our health system is a distant cousin in comparison with the rest of our community health services?

Certainly in my own part of North Hampshire, that came into stark relief during the pandemic, showing the systemic fault line in the dental system and how it is semi-detached from the rest of our local NHS services. Despite being one of the sectors of the NHS that is most experienced with infection control, it was effectively shut completely for almost three months, and for many more months measures were put in place to significantly reduce the number of patients that could be seen. There was almost no way of accessing support, despite the fact that many professionals were very willing to put it in place, including dentists from my own area who contacted me at the time.

There are three systemic issues that the Minister needs to touch on. We need to be clearer about the role of the NHS in providing dentistry. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) touched on the importance of private and NHS provision, but let us not fudge it. We need a mixed economy in the sector if we are going to go forward. Although I agree with the Father of the House that there should always be an NHS option, we need a system that embraces both private and NHS services and enables them to work together.

The second issue is around NHS contracts, which we have heard a lot about in the debate. There are no incentives in the current contracts for prevention or continuity of care set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. There is no real requirement to develop a relationship with patients, which would be beneficial for the long term. Surely that has to change. Can the Minister update us on that?

When it comes to scrutiny and accountability, dentistry is simply not the same as the rest of the NHS. I asked my local regional commissioner in the south-east for some data about 10 days ago when the debate was announced. I still do not have any local data on waiting times for appointments. Why? Because it is not collected. That is appalling. We are spending £500 million in my region, but we are not collecting any data on waiting times. Commissioning the service at a distant, regional level not only failed us in the pandemic, but fails us on an ongoing basis. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, who is really diligent in her work, touch on that in her speech?

We have to see a way forward. The people who access NHS dentistry rate it really highly. We welcome the additional funds that the Government have put in place to provide catch-up, but even though my constituency has two of the three Hampshire dentists who provide those extra services, I am still seeing a spike in problems in accessing the extra dental appointments. I do not think we are out of the woods yet with the hangover from the pandemic.

We need more accountability. We need dentistry to be part of our local health system, we need regional commissioning to be a thing of the past and we need a contract that really works. The 2020 NAO report on the subject is really important, demonstrating that in some areas there are significant under-deliveries of contracted dental services, making it even harder for patients to get NHS services that the NHS is actually willing to pay for. Indeed, the NAO report estimated that almost 1,000 practices fell into that category, delivering up to 40% fewer dental units than they should be in some areas. Let us have a contract that means that people get what they need, that prevention is in place, and that there is continuity of care. Others have touched on the need for more dentists. We have significantly fewer dentists per head than Germany and France. I welcome the work that the Government are doing on that but we need more.

The short-term problems created by the pandemic have shown much more significant and fundamental problems in our dental services. Let us use this opportunity to capitalise on that understanding of where the problems lie and get change that will deliver, for the long term, better dental service for everybody in the private and NHS sectors.

14:22

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Access to NHS dentistry has been raised with me throughout the pandemic, and judging by turnout for the debate, it is something that a lot of Members are keen to get their teeth into—[Interruption.] I promise to make no more dental puns.

I have met dentists and made representations to Ministers numerous times. The overwhelming feeling that I have had from such discussions is of a disjuncture between the two. Dentists and patients do not feel listened to, and Ministers are not offering the solutions needed to ensure that NHS dentistry is accessible for much of the population. While that is not being addressed, waiting times build, preventive dental action is not taken and health inequalities rise.

I pay tribute to all dentists and dental staff in my constituency, who have worked in a high-risk environment throughout the pandemic. I know that they are doing all they can to deliver those services. The correspondence I have had with them shows how passionate they are about ensuring good access to NHS dentistry.

As the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), explained, a lot of the issues relate to the UDA system, which does not encourage dentists to take on new patients, especially those who require a lot of treatment. That scenario is increasingly common in the light of the difficulties that we have had over the past two years. The UDA system accommodates only 50% of the population. To my mind, that means that we start from a position of knowing that many people will be denied access to dental care. We need a functioning NHS dental system, and that will be possible only through contract reform recognising the realities of the difficulties that the sector faces, and if services are commissioned for a much higher proportion of the population.

I am told that the local commissioning figure sits at around 55% of the population, but of course that was pre-pandemic, so the number of people who have been able to access services is actually lower. Unless more of the population is covered, constituents will continue to struggle to access dentistry. One patient advised my local Healthwatch that they had contacted 45 practices in one day, and was told by all of them that there was no capacity as

“they only have a small NHS contract and are therefore not taking on patients at present”

but would be happy to take that person on as a private patient. The system actually encourages greater privatisation.

One constituent, who contacted me because of the pain she was experiencing from a hole in her tooth, described her attempts to register at a practice as a fight, which sums the situation up perfectly. We would not accept people having to ring around A&E departments to see if there was any space for NHS patients, so I do not see why we should accept it for dentists.

Since January 2021, there have been several increases in the UDA targets placed on dental practices. Between January and March 2022, it is expected that 85% of the UDA should be met. Last year, a practice in my constituency had to refund £45,000 because of activity that simply could not be delivered. I understand there is nervousness across the sector about the levels that will need to be refunded given that practices are expected to meet the 20% UDA increase at a time when we still have omicron-related staff sickness and appointment cancellations.

I recently asked whether any assessment had been made of the impact of short-notice cancellations on the ability of dental practices to meet their UDA target. The answer I received simply stated that that was considered within the 85% target and suggested that dental practices keep a short-notice cancellation list. However, the practices I am in contact with already do that and are proactive in trying to fill the slots. It seems, once again, that there is a disjuncture between what the Department says and what is happening on the ground.

Given that infection rates and community spread of covid-19 have been at their highest level in recent months, setting the target at 85% at this time seems questionable. There is little surprise that we are hearing of more dental practices leaving the NHS and operating on a purely private basis when there seems little financial incentive or, indeed, financial feasibility in continuing to deliver NHS services. We face the very real prospect of growing privatisation of dental services and people being priced out of receiving dental care. I have heard of price increases as high as 100% on previous NHS fees for those going private. Together with the cost of living, that is simply pricing people out.

Healthwatch Cheshire West confirmed that deregistration from dental practices is the primary cause of people needing to contact other NHS dentists and being unable to find one locally. The reality is that waiting lists locally sit in their thousands. One practice quoted a total waiting list of more than 3,000 people, demonstrating the significant challenge to be addressed.

In the last six months of 2021, I was contacted by 25 different constituents who faced that challenge. Many were writing on behalf of their whole families as well as themselves. One constituent, whose son was in pain after cracking his tooth, was told to keep ringing back each month to see if there was any capacity to reregister, another resorted to carrying out a temporary filling repair themselves at home and one lady, who had been shielding, was removed from the register due to inactivity. Many were shocked to find out how few rights or guarantees they have to remain registered at a practice. Healthwatch has suggested that clear information is needed so that patients are fully aware of the risk following inactivity or missed appointments. I agree that there needs to be greater information. However, there also need to be greater guarantees of access for individuals.

I will conclude by sharing the words of Cherie, a dentist who operates in my constituency.

“The only way to save NHS dentistry in England is to listen to dentists. It’s currently financially unviable for dentists in high need areas with large UDA contracts...this is only going to widen the oral health inequalities further.”

I urge the Minister to do just that: listen to dentists and act accordingly.

14:28

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate.

I am all too aware of the issues surrounding the availability of dentists in North Devon. I could not find an NHS dentist when I moved there in 2017. I continued to travel back to my previous dentist in Wiltshire for 18 months until I was lucky enough to find one. On election in 2019, my first surgery was with a dental nurse detailing the discrepancies between her terms and conditions and those of other nurses in our healthcare system, as well as the issues surrounding the contracts making NHS dentistry unattractive to a growing number of dentists.

The lack of availability of dentists in North Devon significantly precedes the pandemic. The south-west is particularly poorly served when it comes to dentists. At 0.5%, the south-west average for hospital dental extractions for nought to 19-year-olds exceeds the England average of 0.4%. The figure for North Devon of 0.8% is double the England average, which is unacceptable.

In Devon, just 36% of children and only 43% of adults have seen a dentist in the last year, compared with 60% of children and 51% of adults before the pandemic.

William Shakespeare wrote in “Much Ado About Nothing”:

“For there was never yet philosopher

That could endure the toothache patiently”.

It is not just philosophers who cannot endure toothache patiently—neither can we. My constituents write in their droves to me about their problems accessing dental services.

Only this morning, I was contacted by a retired couple who have recently moved to my constituency. They cannot afford private dental treatment. Despite being mydentist patients in their former home, they have been advised that there is a five-year wait for a place with the same company in North Devon.

Another constituent wrote:

“I moved to Devon in Sept 2018 transferring into the area where my skills were required. I am an average wage earner and in this time have been on a waiting list for an NHS Dentist. I now have a dental problem. I used an emergency service yesterday and paid the £23 fee to sit in the chair for a little over a minute and told I need to find a dentist and have a crown fitted ASAP. The dentist kindly disposed of the chunk of tooth that broke away. I can’t even register with a private dentist let alone an NHS one. I have been warned private treatment will cost around £600.”

Another constituent has been a patient at Barnstaple dental practice for seven years and has paid for private treatment ever since moving there. They told me that they never thought they would be in situation whereby their children were not able to receive NHS treatment. In August 2021, they received three letters advising them that there would be no further NHS treatment for children at the practice.

A school holiday trip to the dentist was part of my childhood. I find it deeply concerning that children in my North Devon constituency are unable to do the same. All too many children have never seen a dentist. Given the statistics I have shared regarding young people in North Devon needing hospital extractions, we are storing up even greater dental issues for the future.

Surely it is possible for dentists to attend schools and check our youngsters’ teeth. There has to be a way to facilitate that. I hope that the Minister is looking into innovative solutions, including whether the 100 community diagnostic centres promised by her Department will also house a dentist facility, as the oral health backlog seems to predate the pandemic.

During lockdown, I met Dr Vinay Raniga from mydentist, who had some suggestions for what more could be done to secure more dentists in the short term. Additional training places for UK dentists are to be welcomed, but the time lag is far too long. We know that the contract needs addressing, but the fundamental issue in my constituency is a lack of actual dentists.

One suggestion is to simplify the processes that enable internationally trained dentists to come to work in the UK. We should take advantage of Brexit and harness the power of the Commonwealth, in particular the over-supply of dentists in India who are available to come to work in the UK. I very much hope that steps are being taken to work with our Indian friends to rebalance this dental supply inequality.

The Minister and I have already exchanged correspondence on this matter, and I know that steps are under way, but I fear that the magnitude of the problem in remote coastal constituencies such as mine needs bigger and bolder interventions. The £50 million is warmly welcome. After speaking with the Minister yesterday, I checked with my clinical commissioning group whether steps were under way to ensure that my local dentists are able to access that funding. NHS England has written to all dental providers in the region and has gathered 51 expressions of interest, of which only 31 meet the criteria set. I am not sure what is wrong with the other 20, but that raises further concerns.

In the south-west, we have retained our urgent dental hubs and have an urgent dental care initiative, providing an extra 1,100 appointments a week. That is of course welcome, but those appointments are for the whole of the south-west of England, and the contents of my inbox tell me that it will go nowhere near covering the demand in North Devon.

Last summer, the chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty highlighted the health disparities in coastal communities compared with their inland neighbours. It is not just positive dental health outcomes that are hard to come by in my North Devon constituency. I know that the Minister is aware of the issues, but we urgently need our children to be able to access dental check-ups. As the social activist, Geoffrey Canada observed:

“Good dental care doesn’t make you a good student, but if your tooth hurts, it’s hard to be a good student.”

The depth of dental decay cannot wait. We need more dentists available to see us now.

14:34

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Efford, for allowing me to speak in this debate to highlight how the dental crisis is impacting on my city of York.

Healthwatch York has been at the forefront of campaigning on dental services, and I pay tribute to York dentists and the wider dental community, who have been generous in sharing the challenges that they face on a daily basis. I have also been inundated with correspondence from constituents, asking me for help. I hasten to add that they do not want me to get out my Black & Decker. They want me to stand in the gap between my city and the Minister in order to find the solutions. It is getting harder, because dentists are disappearing, waiting lists are growing and oral health is deteriorating rapidly.

Healthwatch York carried out a study in 2018. It found that it taken over two years for 45% of York residents to find a dentist, so none of this is new. Back then, 84% of respondents had an NHS dentist; last year, that figure fell to just 59%. Of those who did not have an NHS dentist, 71% could not find an alternative. The number of people who have not seen a dentist in the last two to three years has risen sixfold. According to the national data, the number of children who have seen a dentist has fallen by 44%. In York, it can take five years before people can see a dentist, and no practices are seeing new patients. Out of 39 practices, only one is accepting NHS patients on to a waiting list, but it already has 2,000 people on it.

In the midst of this crisis, many are receiving letters to say that their NHS dentist is going private, and they are therefore left without. One constituent said that they had spent their burial savings on tooth treatment, and another extracted his own tooth. This is a time of real crisis.

Some of my constituents have found a dentist 40 miles or more away, and some say it is cheaper to travel abroad. Many have no dentist at all. The cost of living crisis is bearing down on York because of housing costs, meaning that people simply cannot afford to go private. And nor do they want to. The principle of the NHS is so important to them, so they seek solace at A&E or with their GP in order to address the pain that they are experiencing, at a time when, as we all know, oral health inequality is growing sharply.

A third of people now see a dentist privately, but 71% of them say that it is not by their choice. Accessing NHS healthcare is really important for them. People just cannot afford it any more. There is also a two-year waiting list for an appointment at the only orthodontic practice for children in York.

We need to address the real challenges. First, we need a workforce plan. Things are getting much worse. Last month a BDA survey showed that over 40% of dentists plan to change career or seek early retirement in the next year, so this is urgent. We need dentists, hygienists, technicians, nurses and receptionists. A practice in my constituency has already lost three receptionists because of the abuse they get from very frustrated members of the public. And, of course, they are only on the minimum wage. We need to fill those vacancies. One practice in York has only one and a half full-time-equivalent dentists, rather than the required six, to see 10,000 patients. This is detached from reality.

We also need to make sure that the failed dental contract goes. Since covid, things have got much worse. The need will not be addressed simply by setting compliance at 85% or, as might happen in the coming days, at 100%. Putting more pressure on dentists will make them more stressed and more sick, while also heaping more stress on their colleagues as they take up the slack. Things will just spiral downwards. That approach will not work. It provides the wrong incentives and no solutions.

In York, we have been working through opportunities and plans, because at this point it is really important to look to the future. First, we need to create a national dental service; the system is so broken that we need to build it from scratch. The service must be free at the point of need and should never be dependent on people’s ability to pay.

Secondly, the school service must be reinstated. The Government are struggling to institute the supervised toothbrushing programme that they promised in the general election. Let us get that in place, because prevention is better than cure. And while we are at it, let us make sure that older people also access those services, because poor dental health leads to malnutrition and is actually one of the leading causes of premature death in older people.

We also need to look at the new structures emerging in our health system. I appreciate that this is still going through Parliament, but the integrated care system footprint should have responsibility for those services and we need to take advantage of the opportunities. The York Health and Care Alliance will cover the footprint of our city and integrate mental health, physical health and social care—and I would add dental care to that list. Supporting the alliance will enable us to deliver an integrated healthcare service. That is, of course, important, because our mouths are not divorced from the rest of our bodies. In York we are looking at how to pull all the services together, as we have done with diagnostic and treatment hubs and vaccines. There is a community of expertise that knows about integration, and we need to make sure that it pulls things together for dental services, too.

Finally, our city has called for a new dental school. Our city’s medical school is a unique model. We believe that we should not just look around the world but grow our own talent in order to provide dental services. That is why York—along with Hull, given the shape of our medical school—should have a dental school.

Our dental service has decayed. Oral health is regressing, and now we need a national dental service.

14:39

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. Our constituents in Norfolk and Waveney face similar challenges in getting access to NHS dentists.

This is a long-running problem, which my predecessor also pursued following the closure of a dentist in Snettisham. I raised this issue in my maiden speech and I have focused on it ever since due to the inadequate provision in west Norfolk. Of course, the restrictions put in place during covid have further reduced access, as others have said. The British Dental Association estimates that 40 million appointments were lost overall, but the situation before covid was poor.

The National Audit Office found that my constituency had the lowest number of dentists per head in the country. Moreover, Norfolk had the lowest level of dental activity delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted NHS activity delivered compared with the national median figure of 96%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) also made that point. And, at 17.5%, Norfolk had the highest percentage of people who were unsuccessful in trying to get an NHS dental appointment.

Since being elected I have met the NHS East of England team regularly to press for better access to dentists, particularly following the closure of the mydentist practice in King’s Lynn. I am pleased that those discussions led to a procurement process, which, although delayed by covid, took place from summer last year, and that that procurement has been successful, with the NHS having just announced two new contracts for Smile Care Norfolk to increase access to dentists in King’s Lynn. I want to put on the record my thanks to the NHS East of England team for its efforts in successfully completing the procurement, which will mean that from 1 July my constituents will have better access.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it is disappointing that Fakenham and Thetford have not been successful in the procurement process. If my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) catches your eye, Mr Efford, I am sure that he will speak about that.

Members have also touched on the supply of dentists. Office for Students figures show that there were 895 dental students in 2020, rising to 983 in 2020, compared with 810 in 2019. The 2022 intake, however, is just 809. Given the challenges in dentistry provision, we should be increasing that number, not reducing it. We should consider measures that enable those who are undertaking training to spend time in those areas where coverage is weakest. We should also be more direct and require those who have qualified to spend time in those areas as well.

I note that none of the 11 dental schools in England is in East Anglia. Given the low levels of dental coverage, I join the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in putting in a bid for one in East Anglia, Norfolk, King’s Lynn, to help address that gap.

Another issue that has been raised is that the contract dates from 2006. My hon Friend the Minister candidly referred to it last month as a “disastrous contract” with perverse incentives—or disincentives—for NHS dentists to take on NHS work. I am sure she will be able to update us on when new measures will be introduced to provide a greater focus on prevention and care for individual patients.

In conclusion, the new services coming to King’s Lynn are warmly welcome and will improve access. However, further reforms are needed, including to training and the contract, to ensure that people have the access to dentistry that they need and deserve.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You have all been very disciplined in keeping speeches brief, so I am grateful for that. We are well on time. I call Wera Hobhouse.

14:44

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate. He is almost an hon. Friend: we work on many cross-party issues together, so even though we are on different sides, I call him my friend.

It is important to say that this is not a debate to criticise dentists. It is about criticising a system that does not work. I want to pay tribute to all the dentists in my constituency, who have worked very hard, particularly during the pandemic, to keep the oral health of my constituency in as good shape as possible, but they have really struggled.

Oral health is an essential component of everybody’s health and wellbeing. Dentists play a crucial role in the early detection of a number of diseases, as we have heard, including mouth cancer. Problems accessing NHS dental services are on an unprecedented scale in every community. Morale among NHS dentists is at an all-time low, and 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. All this has been made worse by the pandemic, but the dental crisis in our country far predates covid. It is a result of chronic underfunding and an unsustainable target-based dental contract.

My constituents have been contacting me about access to NHS dental services since I became elected. The biggest concern is that they simply cannot find an NHS dentist. One constituent told me:

“My disabled partner and I have been told that our dental practice will no longer do NHS dentistry for us after 35 years. We are on income support and cannot afford the private fees that are quoted to us.”

Another constituent told me that they could not find a dentist in Bath that could take their child. The closest practice they could find was a 40-minute car journey away. When another constituent needed fillings, she was given two temporary ones and told that anything more would incur private fees. She told me she was afraid to eat. This is the extent of my constituents’ misery.

According to a Healthwatch survey carried out in November, no NHS dentists in Bath and North East Somerset reported that they were taking on NHS patients. No practices reported that they were able to take on children under 18, and no practice reported that it would be able to take on new patients in the next three months. What is happening in Bath is happening across the country.

The single biggest problem with dentistry in the UK is that it has become privatised over decades. I do not want to accuse any particular party of this. It has been going on for a long time, and that privatisation has started to take over. There are around 12,500 dental practices in the UK, of which 30% are private, 15% are mostly private, and 15% are evenly mixed. That means that just 40% are NHS practices, but many of these have elements of private provision.

Fewer than 40% of adults in Bath and North East Somerset have seen an NHS dentist in the two years leading up to June 2021. Those who cannot afford private dental care often do not go until it is too late, and they end up needing emergency care. It is not that there are not any dentists in the UK. I know that there is a problem with the distribution of dentistry, but the biggest problem is that, increasingly, dentists do not want to work for the NHS.

The current crisis will not improve unless we make it viable for dentists to provide NHS treatments and make NHS dentistry a place where people want to work. Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire CCG has lost 9% of its NHS dentists in the last year alone—the highest proportion in the south-west and over twice as high as the national average. Dentists in my constituency have told me that they want to provide NHS treatment but just cannot make it viable under the current conditions. They are hugely worried about the increase in the percentage of the pre-pandemic treatment levels that they are now expected to meet, and the mental health toll on our dentists is enormous.

The Minister has committed to reforming the system. This is welcome, but the pace of change is too slow and practices cannot increase the number of patients they are seeing on promises alone. Not only must the Government reform the current contract; it must do so urgently. The bottom line is funding. The Government must provide adequate resources as a matter of urgency to reverse the alarming decline of NHS dentistry and guarantee its long-term sustainability.

The current situation is nothing short of a scandal and simply unacceptable. Healthy teeth should not be a privilege only for those who can afford to pay for private dental care. More than 70 years ago, the founding fathers of the welfare state envisaged a country where the gross injustices between rich and poor would be eliminated for good. Let us not turn our backs on the principles on which our NHS is based. Oral health is as much a matter of access and equality as the rest of NHS care. To the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we Liberal Democrats absolutely understand the importance of being prudent with the public purse, but equality should never be sacrificed on the altar of balancing the books.

14:50

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford—[Interruption.] I will try to stand up without knocking the furniture over. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for bringing this important debate. It is impressive that so many have attended. I have been listening to your entreaties from the Chair, Mr Efford. Many points have been made about the expansion of housing, covid, fluoridation and the UDA system, so I will not repeat all that, you will be delighted to hear; I will cut my speech very short.

Of the most common issues in my mailbag that constituents write to me about, at the very top is dental care, and NHS dental care in particular. That this issue is widespread is evidenced by all the Members here. I will bring out a few points that I mentioned in the Adjournment debate the other day, because they are so shocking. Some 85% of dental practices are now closed to new NHS patients. Nearly half of patients are forced to get private treatment because of access problems, as reflected in my mailbag. This horrifies me: one child is admitted to hospital every 10 minutes for tooth extractions. Imagine the cost of that, let alone the trauma involved. That is why we have to be proactive, rather than reactive, and why I was pleased to hear fluoridation mentioned.

Some 1,000 clinicians have left the profession in the last year, with yet more significantly reducing their NHS hours, as we heard. That is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the levelling-up agenda, but I do not believe we are being levelled up in an entirely fair manner. Areas such as Clacton are often considered to be rich and well-heeled because we fall into the wider eastern region—Essex is lovely and leafy and is an economic powerhouse—but the coastal areas have pockets of deprivation. I am not proud of it, but my constituency has the most deprived ward anywhere in Britain. Something has to be done about that. If we really want to level up public services, we must consider areas such as Clacton when it comes to dental care. We need to make sure that levelling up follows the data, if we can get it, and not just the rhetoric, and gives coastal communities the help they need.

To my mind, there are two key areas we really need to hit. In an age of integrated care systems and devolving more and more power over primary and acute care to local leaders, I increasingly question the role of certain state monoliths such as NHS England and NHS Improvement. My constituents do not need more national mandarins, they need local, empowered leaders with proper devolved budgets. I reflect on the outstanding leadership of my former CCG and its accountable officer, Ed Garratt; I mentioned him the other day, but I have to again, because he is so good. He has provided a great service to us locally. Thanks to his and his team’s work, Clacton primary care is in a much better state. I want to give local systems the commissioning powers and budget so that we will level up in a local, focused and measurable manner. The PCTs had their day and local care leadership is now delivering. It is time for NHS England to be devolved in the same manner.

Let us move on to the workforce. Increasing the number of UK-trained dentists will help but will take at least six years to make the difference. Urgent action is now needed to increase places on the overseas registration exam, develop an adaptation programme and recognise qualifications from top dental schools around the world.

Our membership of the EU forced us to look away from people in areas such as our wider Commonwealth who are being trained in first-class dental care, and the Asian subcontinent. We could see more of those practitioners in areas such as Clacton, which would be the very Brexit dividend we were led to expect.

I am delighted that Clacton has been selected as a pilot area for new dental training courses, but clarity is needed on how existing budgets can be used to support and improve dental access in constituencies such as Clacton.

To conclude, Mr Efford—I am doing this very quickly—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not want the people of Clacton to miss out on this debate. You have all been so disciplined that we can be a little bit flexible with the six-minute limit. Please do not cut your speech too short so that we miss out on any points.

[Giles Watling]

Mr Efford, with all due respect, I have deliberately gone to the shorter version of my speech. If the Minister wishes to visit the wonderful constituency of Clacton, with its 35 miles of glorious coastline, I would love to discuss dental services with her.

Levelling up is not just about expanding employment outside London. It must be about addressing inequalities wherever we find them, such as decreasing NHS dental care in coastal communities such as Clacton. We can do that by forcing cash and power out of NHS England, alongside using our Brexit freedom to open the nation to the dentists of the world we have so long spurned.

Finally, I put in a plea—a plea for sympathy. In a couple of weeks, I am having root canal treatment. Our dentists are excellent, but I hope it goes well—[Laughter.]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I know I am going to regret saying that we can be quite relaxed about the six-minute limit, but we can. If you run over by a little bit, it should not cause too many problems for people speaking later in the debate, but do not abuse that generosity. I call Tan Dhesi.

14:56

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring valuable parliamentary time is dedicated to the issue.

I place on record my gratitude to dentists, nurses, technicians, hygienists and all those who have worked in dental practices across our country, and in particular in my Slough constituency, over the pandemic, continuing to serve people throughout such uncertainty and disruption as best they could.

As hon. Members know, although clinics were not shut for long, the ongoing repercussions nearly two years later have been astronomical. An estimated 38 million appointments were missed during the pandemic. Despite best efforts, such as opening more than 600 urgent dental hubs and staff working overtime on weekends and evenings, achieving a pre-pandemic level of service has certainly not happened for my Slough constituents, with nearly two thirds of practices estimating that they are continuing to operate at less than 70% of pre-covid capacity.

[Rushanara Ali in the Chair]

Returning to so-called normal was never going to be straightforward, but the chronic lack of support for dentists now and prior to the pandemic is taking its toll. As hon. Members have eloquently highlighted, shockingly, Government spending on NHS dentistry has decreased by more than a third in the past decade. As with other health services, we cannot allow Government to use covid as a smokescreen for what was already a decimated profession.

In the five years before the start of the pandemic, the number of practices providing NHS dentistry fell by 1,253. In December 2021, a survey showed the true toll that has taken on dentists, with more than 40% planning a change of career or retirement over the next year. Tory cuts have consequences, and the pandemic has drastically revealed them.

Since the reopening of practices, I have been contacted by dentists concerned about meeting their targets without adequate support, and patients waiting months, sometimes years, to be seen. The long-term lack of support has created a double-edged sword, failing both patients and practitioners, so I welcome the Government’s recently announced funding, which I hope will achieve their aims of securing 350,000 extra dental appointments, particularly for more vulnerable groups. We are the only country in the UK that failed to provide such support until now, so I fear that it is too little too late. As with all catch-up plans, we need to listen to those who are impacted.

Following the announcement, the British Dental Association noted:

“After a decade of cuts, a cash-starved service risks being offered money that can’t be spent. Hard-pressed practices are working against the clock and many will struggle to find capacity ahead of April for this investment to make a difference.”

I have seen that happening for constituents who contact me: the waiting list for appointments in Slough is more than a year long, orthodontist referrals go back to 2018, and patients are asked to go private if they wish to receive any treatment promptly, paying hundreds of pounds just to be pain-free. That situation is sadly going to get worse, as more than half of dentists state that they are likely to reduce their NHS commitments because they are overworked and undervalued. Is this privatisation by stealth?

The managed decline of Britain’s public services, overseen and supervised by this Conservative Government, has to stop. We all know who will lose out if it continues: the most vulnerable in our society, particularly young people. If we do not properly address this now, we lay the path for a litany of future health issues for children and young people. In my Slough constituency, which is officially the youth capital of Britain as it has the lowest average age of any town or city in our country, this will be devastating. In 2019, 41.5% of five-year-olds in Slough suffered from tooth decay, compared with the national average of 23%, and often required general anaesthetic to remove the impacted teeth, leading to other health risks and impacting their education through missed school days.

Even prior to the covid pandemic, tooth decay was the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions among young people, with a waiting list of a year being standard for the procedure. We already know the disproportionate impact that the pandemic has had on certain groups, including older people; people living in deprived areas; black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; and the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Sadly, that impact has extended into dentistry. NHS England and the Office of the Chief Dental Officer have highlighted that

“Evidence suggests that existing health inequalities have been compounded by COVID-19…The long-term economic impact of the pandemic is likely to further exacerbate oral health inequalities.”

If dentistry moves towards a privatised model, or patients simply cannot be seen due to NHS demand, that widens and entrenches inequalities in our society and, in the long term, it doubles pressure on the NHS for avoidable treatments. Our NHS dentistry should function on the founding principle on which it was created: being accessible for all, regardless of one’s ability to pay.

15:03

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to my local dentists and the whole team of dental staff who support them. They do amazing work, and almost all of them went above and beyond during the pandemic.

I have to express a bit of concern about the information that the Minister’s officials may be feeding her. I got a letter on 16 December from NHS East of England direct commissioning, which said: “Having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area, I can confirm that of the 47 dental practices, six are accepting new NHS patients.” The letter goes on to say that there are 30 others that have not been heard from. I received an email only this morning from a couple in Leighton Buzzard who said that they have given up trying to find an NHS dentist. A lady in Dunstable wrote yesterday to say that the local waiting list is two years. Another constituent wrote to say that they had been turned away by emergency dentists to which NHS 111 had referred them.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Would it be too difficult for the NHS to have a list, for every constituency, of every dental practice and its situation? That way, the NHS, patients and MPs would know what the situation is, and we could change that situation.

[Andrew Selous]

The Father of the House is absolutely right; the point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) earlier. I do not think that the data are nearly good enough, and I do not see how Ministers can have proper oversight if we do not actually know what is happening.

When the letter of 16 December says, “having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area,” I fear that the person who wrote it sat at their desk and went on Google to find out. I do not think they actually came to the town. I do not think that they walked around and spoke to the dentists, the local Healthwatch, or the people in the town. How can the Minister have accurate information if what we get from the officials—that was from an official letter from the NHS to me—does not actually reflect what is happening in the town?

We are struggling now, but my area, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), is scheduled to have another 14,000 houses; they have been consented and are being built now. I have a major campaign on ensuring that general practice capacity keeps up with major new housing developments. How can we do that for dentists too if we already have a deficit? Will the money follow those huge new housing developments in many of our constituencies? We need answers on that too. If the Minister is able to give further information on that, either when she replies, or perhaps by letter afterwards, that would be really helpful.

We have heard from many colleagues about the issue of children’s teeth. I am informed that tooth decay is the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions of young children. That shows the importance of prevention and getting it right, and the whole issue of sugary drinks. I recognise the help that fluoridisation gives, but children’s oral health is a huge issue.

One or two colleagues—including, I think, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—mentioned older people’s dental care; I had a debate on that in the Chamber. It is a subject that we often do not talk enough about, particularly with people in care homes. Do the managers of those homes ensure that staff help the patients to brush their teeth? What about the oral care of people receiving domiciliary care? Is that budgeted in? It is serious; it can lead to malnutrition and all sorts of problems. There was a major Care Quality Commission report, which was only on the care home sector, in June 2019, called “Smiling matters”. It would be good to have an update from the Minister on how we are doing in ensuring that older people’s dental care is also taken proper care of.

We know that the current contract, about which most of us have been complaining, was introduced in 2006—so quite some time ago—but back in June 2009, there was an excellent independent review about what we needed to do about it by Professor Jimmy Steele. I will quote from one paragraph of it:

“Through the NHS, dentistry could take a huge step forward but in order to do that, one concept is critical. So long as we see value for taxpayers’ money as measured by the production of fillings, dentures, extractions or crowns, rather than improvements in oral health, it will be difficult to escape the cycle of intervention and repair that is the legacy of a different age.”

I think that the Steele report got it right. However, that was under the previous Administration, in June 2009. I am told that the work on reform started in 2011, and yet here we are, in 2022. I think that what we are all saying to the Minister—who is diligent and I know cares about these matters—is that we really need some urgency.

On the number of dentists, perhaps slightly surprisingly, and perhaps contrary to some of what we have heard today, I had an email yesterday from the British Dental Association saying,

“We don’t really have a shortage of dentists in England—the number of dentists registered with the General Dental Council is in fact almost 2,000 higher now than it was in 2018. The key problem is that these dentists increasingly don’t want to work in the NHS—almost 1,000 quit the NHS in the last year alone.”

The email goes on to say that if dentists move to private provision, they do not actually earn any more. They are not just leaving NHS work because of the money but because they cannot look after their patients properly under the contract. It says that it is soul destroying, chasing these NHS units of dental activity. It is stressful and demoralising, so what do they do for the same money—not for more money? They go—this is what the British Dental Association says—to private practice, where they can spend more time with their patients, providing the level of care that their patients deserve.

We are not doing it right. To try to guard taxpayers’ money through efficiency, we are driving dentists out of the service. We are measuring the wrong things. I do not think that we are measuring enough, as we do not seem to have enough measurement, and where we are measuring, we are measuring the wrong things. It is not possible to get improvement unless we have the correct data. I have confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Minister, but I think we are all saying that this is urgent and please get on with it with proper reforms.

15:10

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this well-attended and important debate.

I want to relay some of the desperate accounts that have come from my constituents. One moved to St Alban’s with his fiancée in November 2020—15 months ago. They needed dental care and tried eight NHS dental practices in the area, but not one could add them even to the waiting list. They have checked with the practices every single month for the past 15 months and still no joy. My constituent’s fiancée has now registered with some student dentists at a hospital in London. She is desperate to get some treatment. The good news is that she is on the waiting list; the bad news is that it is still a very long waiting list.

Another constituent, a mother, has a very young daughter. The mother has spent two and a half years trying to get her daughter an appointment with a dentist. She wrote that she was surprised that NHS practices do not even have an obligation to take in children, especially when they have a dental issue. She herself has gum disease, which got worse during her pregnancy. She has had to spend all her savings and money to go private.

Another person who has been trying for ages to get a dentist appointment rang the NHS phone number, which tells people to call it if they cannot get an appointment. All the people there did was to search the websites for her, which she had already done. Their only advice was that she should wait until she was in agony and then call NHS 111. What kind of advice is that? It is unfair and counterproductive, and it costs the taxpayer more.

The local dentistry committee in Hertfordshire wrote to me. It had written to NHS England, along with the dental committees of Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. They were begging for the payment system to be reformed. It is absurd that, if dentists carry out more work for their community than the outdated cap allows, they simply cannot be paid. That is an absolutely absurd system. Dentists are unable to provide the care that their patients need. The units of dental activity skew the dental system. It is now more attractive for practices to deal with less complex patients: in many cases, they are paid the same flat rate for such treatments as they would for helping those with higher needs.

The Local Dental Committees confederation has sent its plans to the Government and to many MPs, saying that the system has to be reformed. I sincerely hope the Minister will give us a better answer than the one I was given to my written parliamentary question earlier today, which simply confirmed that the system was being reviewed along with lots of other options. We need to hear more positive noises from the Minister this afternoon.

What needs to change? The Association of Dental Groups has made some recommendations on workforce. Some Members have alluded to those recommendations—the “six to fix”. The association talked, first, about the need for more training places here in the UK, which I am sure we all support. Secondly, it called for—some Members have not referenced this—the recognition of EU national dentists to be extended beyond the end of this year, when it will otherwise run out. Thirdly, the association has called for the UK to look at recruiting from countries that have a surplus of high-skilled dentists. Unfortunately, it appears to be news to some Members in the Chamber that we were always able to recruit from some of those countries, and it did not require Brexit to be able to do so.

I would like to put three questions to the Minister. First, when will my constituents be able to see a dentist? Secondly, when will this absurd payment system be scrapped and reformed? Thirdly, when will there be a workforce strategy so that dental deserts, which we have heard so much about, become a thing of the past and this Dickensian system of years-long waiting is finally brought to an end?

15:15

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

I echo other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for bringing this debate forward. My hon. Friend is a good friend and has been a real champion in bringing these debates to this Chamber and other places on many occasions, and I thank him for all the work he has done.

As I said in my intervention, I might have a bit of a vested interest in this topic given that my father was an NHS dentist for 34 years. As a retired dentist, he is probably sitting at home with a cup of tea watching this debate, so I shall try to say some nice things about him. He worked in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who is my neighbour in north Norfolk. The facts from when he retired 10 years ago are still prevalent today. In fact, it is arguable that the problems he encountered back then are now even worse. That is a sad state of affairs.

It is fair to say that we have a crisis in dentistry—-we certainly do in my constituency. Not a week goes by when I do not receive casework from people who are in pain or who simply cannot get an appointment with an NHS dentist and cannot afford to go private.

There are acute problems in certain parts of the country. We have heard from hon. Members from all over the country today, but the south-west and East Anglia are well known to have some of the worst problems. The fact is, we simply cannot get dentists to come and work in some of these rural locations.

The Minister wants to have answers, not always problem, and I would echo my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who said that a dental training college in our part of the country would be very worth while. Alongside the Norwich Medical School, such a college would create jobs and opportunities and filter those into our part of the country. There is nowhere in the east of England to train dentists at the moment. We are crying out for some kind of provision to help us. Why can we not make it a requirement for newly qualified NHS dentists to have to do a year of training in an area of high need before they pass with flying colours?

I also echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is absolutely right: it is not simply that we cannot get dentists into the country or that we are not training enough. Many will call for dentists to be trained or imported from other countries to ease the crisis, but the truth is that we do not simply have a shortage. Of course, we can make it easier for dentists coming across from India to have their qualifications recognised so that they can perform their work straightaway. We do need to streamline that process. However, that is not at the heart of the issue.

The simple facts are that the General Dental Council found that almost 2,000 more dentists are registered now than in 2018. The problem is that those dentists—just like my father, who retired 10 years ago—have simply had enough and do not want to work in the NHS any more. We have to establish why that is and address that as a key problem.

Of course, we could talk about many different areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney listed five, and I will not go over those again. I will focus on one issue that we have heard a lot about today. I am not going to apologise for calling it the dreadful UDA contract. It was bad a decade ago and it is still bad today.

Almost 1,000 dentists quit the NHS in the last year alone, and the motivation to do so, as has been said, is not purely financial. Those dentists, like my father, are doctors; they care about patients’ health. They want to spend time with their patients and treat them properly. The bureaucracy of getting points for giving out prizes is not the right way to deal with people. Dentists are not being treated with care. They do not want to be chasing these dental activity targets—that is highly stressful and demoralising. The delays in the contract reforms are leading to their motivation plummeting and going through the floor. That is why they are turning away. The lack of urgency in helping them is the real root cause of the problem.

Let me put that into some kind of context. In the Norfolk and Waveney CCG area, which also covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, we lost 40 NHS dentists between 2018-19 and 2020-21—a 9% drop in just two years. If we carry on at that rate, we will be in an absolutely shocking predicament. We therefore need to make a decision, and I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said earlier. However, NHS dentistry is not free—that is a myth. We need to make a decision: either we will continue with this decline, effectively privatising dentistry and sending it down the opticians route, or we need to urgently get on and reform the dentistry provisions in the contracts we keep talking about. There is a simple reason why: we cannot do this to our children, our elderly, our vulnerable and people on low incomes. They are the ones who need access to good dentistry, and it is not acceptable in the 21st century, and in a modern country, that they cannot get help and support from this service.

Less than 25% of children in Norfolk saw an NHS dentist in the year to June 2021, and that is significantly lower than the national average of 33%. Imagine if it was your child who had excruciating pain and could not get to see a dentist. That goes back to what I said earlier: this is a particular problem in East Anglia.

I know that the Minister is keen on reforming the system and that negotiations are under way, but I urge her to grab this issue with huge vigour. The number of Members sitting here this afternoon—on a Thursday, and when we are waiting to get away for the recess—shows just how important this is for so many of our constituents up and down the country.

15:22

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for raising this issue and for their tenacity. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali.

As many hon. Members have said, dentistry is not just about teeth; it is a vital component of our health. The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) shared a Shakespearian quote, and there is another one worth mentioning. In Shakespeare’s “As You Like It”, Jaques says:

“Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

If the Government carry on the way they are, it will be “sans dentists” as well. They need to get a grip of the situation.

The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) talked about the cash and the expenditure. I am happy to have a debate with him on this issue, and if he wants to secure a Westminster Hall debate on public expenditure, I will join him. I will give him an example of what he was talking about: the £10 billion-worth of covid-related fraud. That is equivalent to £153 for every person in his constituency—the best part of £50 million, which would be better spent on dental services in his constituency.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I am more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Last week, I took part in a debate on the energy crisis. This week, I took part in debates on the crisis in children’s mental health services, the food insecurity crisis and the cost of living crisis. Today, it is about the access to dental services crisis. There is a bit of a theme beginning to develop here—it is about crisis, and all these crises are not isolated.

It is not as though the Government are having a run of bad luck through no fault of their own and have an otherwise impeccable record; there is something systemic and even endemic going on. I get a bit tired of the Government’s default approach to any deficit in policy application, and we have heard it a bit here: it is the CCGs, the NHS, the officials—it is everybody else’s fault bar the Government’s. They have to take responsibility.

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment. I am happy to give way, but we were told earlier that we did not have much time.

I do not want to detract from the substance of the debate, but it would be remiss of me not to talk about the crisis in health and social care more generally. Specific recognition from the Government of a crisis in access to dental services would give me a bit more confidence that they have a handle on it. More importantly, it would give me confidence that they are actually going to do something substantive about it. I wait with bated breath.

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

Any denial by the Minister that there is a problem is itself a part of the problem. I really do not want to hear any denials.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is not making a particularly collegiate speech, but never mind. I have a lot of time for him. I do not know where the £10 billion fraud figure he throws out has come from. If it is about PPE, he should look at the facts behind that: £4.6 billion of that was write-down of current value versus value at the time of the pandemic. If we are going to debate in this place, it should at least represent the facts.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raises that. The bottom line is this: look at the Public Accounts Committee documents. There are more to come out. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate on fraud, I am more than happy to have one. Perhaps he can put in the application and I will come and speak to him about it.

[Mrs Miller]

What would the hon. Gentleman have done differently in 2006 when the current dental contract was put in place? Of course, at that point, he would have been able to influence the Labour Government.

[Peter Dowd]

I will come back to that in a minute. I am an optimist—hope springs eternal, as Alexander Pope said—and I hope the Minister will accept that there is a crisis. Perhaps then we can all move on, in a very collegiate way, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) says, towards finding a solution, which he knows I am more than happy to do.

[Wera Hobhouse]

For the purpose of giving everybody a voice, would it not be most collegiate if we actually acknowledged that the dental contract was introduced under a Labour Government? It is important to address that, but it is also important to address the fact that the bottom line is public funding for a good service.

[Peter Dowd]

Frankly, the coalition, including the Liberal Democrat party, which the hon. Lady serves, could have sorted that problem out in the last 10 years, but they dithered, ducked and dived. Let us not go there. She is on dodgy ground in relation to that, I have to say.

Facts are stubborn, and here are a few. The Government have cut dental budgets by a third in real terms over the last decade. They are making a meal out of their recent time-limited £50 million injection into the service, or the so-called dental treatment blitz—a blitz that will barely blow the top off a toothpaste tube. I suspect that that £50 million—a veneer if ever there was one—is unlikely to be fully spent.

The bottom line is that we are in a crisis. The British Dental Association estimates that it will take £880 million a year to put things back to where they were in 2010—that is a fact, and it does not account for the huge impact of the pandemic. We also need to address the chronic underfunding and to have a clear commitment to ending the system based on units of dental activity that has been going on since 2011—it has been discussed today so I will not go into it any more. It has been over a decade, and the Government really need to get a grip of that.

In my constituency, 5% of dentists in South Sefton CCG stopped providing NHS services in the last two years. That vastly underestimates the loss of local provision, as most dentists tend to reduce the size of their NHS contract gradually before they quit the NHS completely. Across the country, 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the pandemic. That is a whole year of dental provision. Without better support from the Government and, crucially, an end to the chronic underfunding, and without a clear commitment to and progress on contract reform, there is no way dentistry will be able to recover.

The covid alibi is beginning to wear a bit thin. This is all about pre-covid. Covid has exacerbated the situation, but pre-covid is also significant. Enormous backlogs began pre-covid. Let us get a grip of that. I ask hon. Members across the way to press the Minister and ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—their colleagues—to listen to the facts, because, unless Members opposite can get that message across to an indurate Government, things can only get worse. No more excuses, no more prevarication, no more procrastination, no more pretext or self-exoneration—as I have heard today. The Government need to pull their finger out. We need action now. There is no excuse for letting the opportunity go by.

In closing, perhaps I can re-jig what Ian Fleming said to make a point about the Government’s lack of action in this crisis. He said:

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Which one does the Minister think it is? I cannot speak for the dental profession, but I think I know which one it is, and it is not one of the first two.

15:31

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I, too, want to give my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). One of the great advantages to speaking late on in a debate is that we can jettison all the interesting facts and figures we have carefully researched in preparation for a speech like this, because they have all been mentioned several times already. I want to focus instead on providing the Minister with some local feedback from my constituency of Broadland, so that she, when deliberating on how best to improve the dental contract and provision for all our constituents, can hear from the horse’s mouth the nuances that are experienced in Broadland and Norfolk and Waveney more widely.

Of all healthcare issues, dentistry is the most prominent in my inbox week after week. It is not just about the ability to register to get initial access, it is about getting dental work completed. I have a huge list of constituents’ casework, which I am not going to bring to Members’ attention, save for one, which gives a flavour of the seriousness of the missing treatment. A constituent of mine had two fillings fall out, which is a fairly common experience. She was unable to get any dental treatment to deal with that, so she ended up having to ring 111. She was told that, because of the lack of dental provision in the county of Norfolk, she was encouraged to do a DIY filling—that was by 111.

Every day is a school day in this job. I now understand that using the wax from Babybel cheeses is the way to perform a DIY filling recovery. Should we be in that sort of position? I, for one, think we should not. There are all sorts of examples I could have shared with Members. I want to drive home the real impact. For whatever reason, we are in the position we are now; some of it is covid, but a lot of it is not. We must, as a Government, address it in support of all of our constituents, however they voted.

I also have feedback from dentists. I have the honour of representing a fantastic town called Fakenham, which has been referred to already. One of the two NHS dentists announced a few months ago that she was no longer accepting NHS patients and that she was going private. I rang her up to find out what was the reason behind it. She is a very decent woman, who has worked tirelessly for the community of Fakenham for many years. What she said to me was not primarily about money. It was actually about the way she was treated by her NHS managers, which caused her frustration that reached such a pitch that she thought, “Stuff it. I am not putting up with this any longer.”

One thing that the dentist referred to that particularly stuck in my mind was that even a year ago, she had a person she could talk to directly as part of her management team; when there was a problem, she could ring up and talk to someone. That call was replaced by an email. She said that she had emailed every week for the previous 12 weeks about a really serious issue and she had not even had a reply. If we treat professional providers in that offhand way, can we be surprised that they decide to move to private provision? That is an option that every single NHS dentist has, and they have been voting with their feet.

I have already mentioned that this is not primarily about money—at least not in this instance—but I welcome the £50 million of additional spending that the Department has announced, and the 350,000 further treatments that that is apparently going to provide. I also very much welcome the decision by the Department to award a new contract for dentistry for Fakenham, because it is the largest town in my constituency and we were down to a single NHS provider. However, as has already been mentioned, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), we have not been able to entice any dentist to take up that contract, even though the money is available.

Why is that? Why is it that a fantastic town such as Fakenham, which is a brilliant place to live, 5 miles from the gorgeous north Norfolk coast, with a really lovely quality of life and relatively low housing costs—it is a great place; it has its own racecourse—

[Duncan Baker]

And a good golf course.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It also has a good golf course—I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour. It is genuinely a really gorgeous town, so why is it that it cannot attract anyone to take on the NHS dentistry contract that is available? As my hon. Friends have pointed out, one of the reasons is that we have no training facility—not just in Norfolk or Suffolk, or even in Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire; the nearest is in London. People have to go up to Birmingham or to London.

When we are trying to persuade young dentists to set out on their professional life in a certain place, moving to a rural or small town is not automatically attractive to them. We have to encourage people via training, and we know from our experience with the medical provision at the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk medical training in Norwich that someone is much more likely to stick around afterwards in the place where they train, because they have established relationships, they have contacts in the community—and, frankly, they know what great places Fakenham and other parts of Broadland are. One of the primary reasons I wanted to speak today was to encourage the Minister to consider the provision of a dental training facility in the east of England.

I will leave it to others who are much more professional than I am to comment on how we properly reform the 2006 NHS contract, save for saying that we need to treat dentists with respect. It is not all about money; it is about how we treat people. And please can we have some training in Norfolk?

15:38

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. I enjoyed the spirited contribution by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—particularly the characteristic political attacks. That highlights part of the problem that we are dealing with here. If we are unable to recognise the failures by a number of different Governments across a number of decades, we will never get solutions. Equally, if we continue constantly treating the NHS or anything about it as a political football, we will paralyse this country and things will not get done.

I know that the Labour party likes to blame everything on the Government, but today’s debate has been really useful for hearing all the different elements of what is going wrong for NHS dentistry, including the part that the NHS itself can play in handling HR, looking after staff and retention. I think that is important.

This is a critical, crucial health issue for my constituents in Stroud, as it is for other Members’ constituents. We have a number of different points of casework related to this issue, and we get emails about it all the time. Anybody who has had toothache knows that it is debilitating: we cannot get on with our day, we start off grumpy, and we end up not speaking—my husband likes that bit. Anybody who has seen a child with decaying teeth starts to worry about what is going on at home, and about the health and future of that child. They are right to do so, because once those teeth are decaying, it is very difficult to repair them.

I thank all of Stroud’s dentists: like other Members, I had so many dentists contact me during covid to offer help. They were some of the first people to be frustrated by the restrictions placed on them, but also the first to offer help. In Gloucestershire, the CCG has seen a drop of 17 NHS dentists between 2019-20 and 2020-21. That is a drop of 5% in one year, so it is a very worrying development, as colleagues have said. We believe that it is also likely to under-represent the real fall in capacity, because most dentists tend to reduce their NHS contracts before leaving the service, and only 33% of adults in Gloucestershire saw an NHS dentist in the two years to June 2021.

To provide some colour and some real-life experience, one of my constituents moved to Stroud in January 2020. She fell pregnant and was entitled to free dental care, but by the time she had obtained her MAT B1 certificate, she was unable to find a dentist. She could not find a dentist throughout her pregnancy, when she would have had that free dental care, and still has not found one. She spoke to 15 dentists in the local area—Stroud, Wotton, Stonehouse and Gloucester—all of whom told her that they were not accepting new NHS patients. One interesting and worrying point that she raised with me is that all of the dentists’ surgeries she spoke to that were accepting children as NHS patients—her little one is about one year old now—were doing so only if their parents joined them on a private basis. She and her husband have found themselves having to join on a private basis and pay the fees to make sure that her little one has NHS cover. So many parents would not have that option, but I do not think it should be my constituent’s only option for getting support for her child.

There are three key areas I would like the Minister to cover, and I have no doubt that she will do so. Norfolk desperately wants a training centre, just in case she has not got that point. First, what is the explanation for the delays in creating the improved new contracts for NHS dentists? We are spending £3 billion: why are we still in a situation where the actual terms of the contract—the piece of paper—are preventing people from getting into this worthy, skilled and amazing profession?

Secondly, what is the plan to address the recruitment issues? We have heard that almost 1,000 dentists quit the NHS last year; we have heard about the people going back to European countries; and we have heard that people are not coming from further afield abroad. Can existing resources be used to improve recruitment and retention? The Minister has responded to me very clearly: we have similar problems with midwifery services. We have lots of recruitment and retention issues in the NHS, so there are similarities; what can we do?

Thirdly, how are the Government using the post-pandemic period to reimagine NHS dentistry in both areas, the preventive action and the responsive package? With preventive action, we are hoping to bring in family hubs around the country that children can access from birth. Can those hubs be used to improve children’s and families’ awareness of healthcare and dental health? Also, turning to the responsive package, the points about data collection really worry me. As we have heard from a number of colleagues, we are never going to improve services if our CCGs around the country do not have the information they need.

Finally, I want everybody to think about the pain of toothache. It is absolutely awful to go through, and our constituents are really worried about this. I think we can make changes: I do not think that this is just a money issue, and given that there is so much cross-party support to make a change, I hope that we can do so.

15:44

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted that we are being guided by you, Ms Ali. As a dentist—extremely part time—I am fascinated by the interest in this issue. I hope that some dentists read Hansard and find out that somebody actually cares about them. One of my hon. Friends asked why they were leaving the profession. It is a tough job—a really tough job. If I want relief from a couple of hours of dentistry in a week, I come into the House of Commons—it is a lot easier.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his introduction to the debate. It was a real expedition, right across the whole scene. I will suggest that we create an honorary degree in dental administration especially for him, because he covered it so beautifully.

Let me start very simply. I will not go through all the bits and pieces that everybody else has talked about; I will just cruise across the surface. We have three different groups of dentists: fully private, fully NHS, and mixed. The last group is the largest by far; and, to a considerable degree and in spite of some of the accusations today, that is by patient demand. It is what the patients want. It is not always the case that they feel forced into it because they cannot get the service elsewhere. The comment was made that we do not have enough dentists, but the BDA says that we have. I do not agree with the BDA, but this will not be the first time. We do need more dentists. If we had more dentists, we would get over the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) had of finding someone to live in his little rural area, because if they were looking for a job and there were not jobs in the other areas, they would go there.

It is worth pointing out that dentists working in the NHS are not actually in the NHS; they are independent dentists working for the NHS. That makes quite a difference to the relationship and makes it somewhat more difficult for the Minister to influence dentists as she might well like to. It is also worth pointing out that a number of dental plan organisations are encouraging dentists to abandon the national health service and provide services within their private plan system. I still get dental magazines as a bit of light relief—well, lightish relief—and every one that I get has advertisements promoting dentists coming out of the national health service, for all sorts of reasons, some of which are fictitious.

Covid, in spite of what one hon. Gentleman said, has been a huge problem—not just for medical services but for dentistry. With the initial lockdown, all dental surgeries were required to close. Emergency clinics were set up and they were successful, but extremely limited—“a bit brutal” would be one way to put it. Fortunately, the closure of surgeries was relatively short-lived. After a period, they reopened—understandably, under heavy covid hygiene procedures. Those procedures really jammed up the works. This is of course understandable, because at that stage we did not have vaccinations, and with the aerosol spray from the dentist working on the patient’s mouth, you could almost see covid spread across the room. The cleaning down and waiting time between patients—fallow time—really damaged productivity. But we are getting past that now. I hear the Prime Minister is going to tell us that we are all lovely, everything is fine, covid has gone and so on. That is slightly tongue in cheek—sorry, I should not really say “tongue in cheek”, should I? By the way, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about dentistry and teeth being part of all health. The chief dental officer has a lovely saying, which is that we should put dentistry, or the mouth, back in the body. That is really important.

The combination of the restrictions, all the rules and then, as I have discovered, the extremely heavy regulation requirements of the Care Quality Commission meant that a considerable number of dentists thought, “I have had enough” or, “I’ve possibly had enough,” and then said, “I’ve had enough,” and retired. Progressively, the surgery cleaning down and fallow time has been better understood by dentists and they have been quicker at it and faster, but I still feel that there is an opportunity now, with what the Prime Minister is going to tell us, for us to cut that out. The Government do not always do very nice things for dentists, but one nice thing that they did for dentists was that they gave them the inoculations early on. They gave them not just for the dentists but for all the staff, even down to the cleaner. That is vital, because it will, I think, give us an opportunity to remove the fallow time—get rid of it.

For decades pre-covid, there was a shortage of dentists. There was certainly a shortage of dentists providing NHS services in particular areas. The way to get around that, as I have said, is to have more dentists. If we have more dentists for fewer jobs, they will go to other areas to work. Dentists are independent, so they have an opportunity to change that. Sourcing and increasing the number of dental practitioners is slow and relatively limited.

The most obvious solution is dental schools; we have touched on that. Every second place in the country wants a new dental school next to its hospital. I am sure that would solve the problem, but goodness knows how we would afford it, let alone get the people to teach in them. We have to remember that the basic dental degree takes five years, and the practitioner that comes out after five years needs a two-year apprenticeship before I would let them loose on my cat or dog, let alone one of my children.

Another way to get dentists is to attract them from overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that; it is a great source. When I came here, every second dentist had an Australian accent. The practice I worked at for many years—quite a big one in south-west London—was staffed only by Australians and New Zealanders, and occasionally a South African. The principal got into real trouble with the Commission for Racial Equality. He rang up the agency and said, “I want another dentist. Can you find one? They’ve got to come from Australia or New Zealand.” He was told, “That’s racist. You can’t do that,” but there were hundreds if not thousands of them coming over from the Commonwealth.

The problem with people coming over here has been touched on: they have to go through courses and all the rest of it to become registered. We did not have that then and we do not have to have it now. Wherever the school is, it is the school that needs to be assessed. If the school passes its assessment, any student that passes and becomes a qualified dentist should be allowed in—just like that. That is what happened when I came. I handed over my certificate and the General Dental Council, bless it, stamped it and said, “Thank you very much. Off you go.” We should be doing that.

I had a complaint from the GDC that the people it sent out to assess the University of Otago in New Zealand, for example, did a quick tour of the dental hospital and then disappeared off to the vineyards. I am sure there was no truth in that. But we could get dentists from the Commonwealth, and we could keep bringing people in from the EU. People from the Commonwealth stopped coming when we joined the EU and they went to the United States. I ran a big function here for Otago graduates, and a vast number of professors of dentistry from Otago University came over from the United States. Normally, they would have come here; normally, we would have had them. Normally, we understand their English a little bit better, even if they are Australian, than the Americans do. That has to be an attraction. We should still be able, as I have said, to get European and Scandinavian dentists. That has to continue, because it would help massively.

We have to recognise that we will not have an instant or even a fast solution to the problems laid out today. Everybody has laid out problems, and a few people have come up with ideas. I am sorry for the Minister, because she is getting hammered for the problems, and she will not be able to provide a fast solution. It is not a case of money; it is a case of having the dentists to do the work.

Our best long-term hope, which one or two people have touched on, is prevention. The chief dental officer and others have an ongoing campaign to teach children, especially little children in day nurseries and so on, about toothbrushing. Having worked in the east end for some time, I know that when we ask a child, “What’s your toothbrush like?”, they sometimes say, “What’s a toothbrush?” We have to get that across to the kids. Kids love brushing their teeth. The mess is phenomenal, but they love it. The campaign is really starting to work. Wales and Scotland are ahead of us on that, but we are catching up, and it is making a noticeable difference. We can actually see the difference.

Our second hope, of course, is fluoridation. In other countries—Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on—fluoride is in between 60% and 80% of water supplies. It makes a huge difference, and with no possible detriment to health. In this country, 10% of water supplies are fluoridated. It is pathetic. The Bill going through at the moment represents an opportunity to change that, but some nations have suddenly realised the real difference that can be made. New Zealand, if I dare mention that country again, is thinking of saying that every single water supply throughout the nation—it is a biggish country, about the same size as this one, but the population is tiny—will be fluoridated. That is a dramatic step, but we could do it. If we did, along with promoting fluoride toothpaste and teaching kids how to brush their teeth and cut down on sugar, then instead of being one of the worst dental states in the western world, we could be one of the best. It is a real opportunity and something we could achieve.

I know that the Minister cannot do anything overnight, and we have to accept that—

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to wrap up his speech?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I am wrapping up right now.

I know that the Minister cannot do anything overnight, but I wish her the best of luck with the struggle.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

I am most grateful. I have two more speakers to get in. To ensure that the Minister and shadow Minister have time to respond, I would be grateful if hon. Members could adopt an informal limit of three to four minutes.

15:56

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. It is clearly a huge, topical, cross-party issue that has largely been discussed in a collegiate fashion.

On the rare occasions that I get any press coverage for my work as a Member of Parliament, I am often referred to as “senior” or “veteran”, which I think says more about my age than my experience. When I got here in 2015, this was one of the first things I raised with the then Minister for dentistry, Alistair Burt. To be fair, things have changed since then; they have actually got a lot worse. The reality is that it is impossible for most people in my constituency to get on an NHS waiting list. We must be honest with the public: either we open the gates so that more people can access treatment, or we tell them that dentistry is for some people and not for others.

The Father of the House said that it would be helpful to be able to search for availability in each of our constituencies. I agree, but I know exactly what it would say for my constituency, because this morning I checked across North Yorkshire—which is larger than my constituency—and there is simply no availability on NHS waiting lists. It has been like that for most of the seven years I have been in Parliament. The pity is that I have dentists who will accept NHS patients, but they just cannot get the units of dental activity. There is a real impasse between the issues and our honesty in saying whether NHS dentistry treatment is available in our constituencies.

Of course, that has real-world effects, and I will read from a couple of emails. A Mrs Weston wrote to me this morning:

“My son, an adult with special needs… is on universal credit and PIP, and he has to pay for private treatment as we cannot get on an NHS list… He has had to have a tooth removed because of an abscess, something that could well have been avoided if he had had regular check-ups.”

Even worse than that, a lady from Rillington wrote:

“My daughter has a toothache and needs to see a dentist… Our dentist ceased providing NHS services and there is nowhere else we can get into… They advised us to ring 111… and we were told a dentist would get back to us within 7 days. No one did. Tonight we rang again. We were on hold for 2 hours before we got through to the Yorkshire and Humber Dental Services, who told us they have no capacity to help.”

This is simply unacceptable.

Somewhat different from most of today’s speeches, the key thing that I want to talk about is commissioning. In my constituency—my hon. Friend the Minister knows this, and she has been very responsive on it—the NHS dentist on Bondgate in Helmsley closed totally in September 2020. It will not reopen until April ’22 at the earliest—that is the predicted date of opening—so it will have taken 20 months for the NHS people who commission services to reopen the service, despite the fact that we had someone who was willing to take the contract right from the start. On Kirkgate in Thirsk, it will have taken six months, so that is slightly quicker—apparently, that will open in March this year.

The contract is wrong. This “five plus two” contract, rather than a general dental services contract, deters investment and is very bureaucratic, having to be revisited consistently. We must simplify the commissioning process. We must put a rocket up the people commissioning this—20 months is simply not acceptable. I agree with others who suggest devolving this stuff back to local areas: we can look after it and commission the treatment, rather than having it all done centrally by super-regional managers.

16:00

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak, Ms Ali. I had to step out of the debate briefly to have an urgent meeting with the Business Secretary about energy prices. Thank you so much for fitting me in. I will be as quick as I can.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate on a subject that comes up frequently on the doorsteps of High Peak. I thank the dentists, orthodontists, hygienists, technicians and all those who have worked incredibly hard in dental practices over the past two years through the pandemic. We are lucky to have some excellent dentists in High Peak, including Dean Kennedy dental practice, which happens to share an entrance with my constituency office in Whaley Bridge.

We all know that dentists work hard for their communities. Nevertheless, a large number of local people have been in touch with me about how difficult it is to get a dental appointment. The response to a freedom of information request by the British Dental Association indicates that 70% of appointments, or 28 million courses of treatment, have been missed in England since the start of the pandemic. Making up that backlog is essential.

I therefore welcome the recent announcement of an additional £50 million investment in NHS dentistry, including nearly £9 million for my region, to help patients access dental treatment and to catch up on that backlog. Beyond the short term, however, it is important for the Government to take steps to guarantee the long-term sustainability of NHS dentistry. Far too many people are finding it impossible to get registered at a new NHS dental practice. I have experienced that difficulty at first hand, in how difficult it was to get registered with an NHS dentist near my home in Glossop.

According to “The Great British Oral Health Report”, carried out by mydentist, 53% of the public have not had a routine dental check-up in the past year. Of those who had not seen a dentist, 28% said that they could not get an appointment and 14% that they were unable to register with an NHS dentist. Those are worrying figures.

I fear that we could be storing up real long-term problems for public health, as relatively routine dental problems go unchecked and untreated, and develop into much more serious conditions, which will need much more expensive treatments in future. Several hon. Members also identified concerns about mouth cancers going undiagnosed in the long run, which is a big worry.

Part of the problem is that there are simply not enough dentists. We need a serious drive to improve both the recruitment and the retention of dentists. I have raised the issue directly with Ministers previously, including making the suggestion—as other Members might have done today—that the Government should look again at the recognition of overseas dental qualifications.

The long-term plan for the NHS rightly emphasised the importance of preventive healthcare, and dentistry should be at the frontline of that effort. I hope that NHS dentists will be represented properly in the governance of the new integrated care systems, including in Derbyshire, so we can have a truly integrated and joined-up approach to public health. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I and other Members have made today. Swift action is needed.

16:04

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.

I am delighted to respond to this brilliant debate, in which we have had 23 speakers from all parties. Before I go further, however, I feel that I ought to thank my own dentist. Aidan has served me and my family well for more than 20 years. I will always follow him, wherever he sets up practice, and I have told him that he is not allowed to retire, ever.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for their diligent work in this area and for securing the debate. It is clear that the current situation simply is not working. As we have heard, staff are leaving the profession in droves, patients are struggling to access the appointments they need, and staff have been left undervalued, under-resourced and under-appreciated for far too long. This Government are putting the future of NHS dentistry at risk, and we have heard about some of that today in the choices confronting the sector.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us about a plan, I am pretty sure that she will tell us that she has heard the concerns that have been expressed today, and I am very sure that she will blame the last Labour Government. However, I think we need to ask, “Where is the action?” We welcome the additional funding for the NHS—the £50 million injection—but it ignores the wider structural issues affecting dentistry. It will fund less than 1% of the 40 million appointments we have lost since the start of the pandemic; it is a mere drop in the ocean. The impact of those lost appointments is clear. “The Great British Oral Health Report”, published in August, showed that a third of the population is estimated to be suffering from undiagnosed tooth decay. That is particularly problematic among children, as we have heard, with a child being admitted to hospital for tooth extraction every 10 minutes in the UK. That is a shocking statistic.

We know that some of our most vulnerable communities rely on NHS dentistry, and increasing barriers to access only fuel inequality. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke particularly cogently about that inequality. Before the pandemic, tooth decay among children in the most deprived communities was 3.8 times higher than among those in the least deprived communities. That severely affects my constituency of Bristol South.

Again, as many have said, we need a proper long-term strategy to address the workforce crisis affecting the whole of our NHS, as well as reform of the broken contract system. The Minister has said on many occasions how broken that contract system is. It has been in place since 2006. As we know, it was negotiated by the Labour Government. We know times have changed, but we also know the Government have been trying to change the contract since 2011, which may give some indication of how difficult it is. I have some sympathy with that, but a decade should be enough time to get on with sorting the problem.

Even as recently as Monday’s Adjournment debate, we have heard Ministers say, “We’ve started work on that reform.” We are all desperate to hear how it is progressing and, to be honest, for the Government to get a bit of a move on with it. It was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto of 2010—12 years ago. It would behove the Minister, after the number of debates that we have had, to come forward and say when we can expect to see the fruits of that decade of discussion. It is a problem that urgently needs tackling, not kicking further into the long grass.

When the Minister talks about there being a shortage of dentists wanting to do NHS work, I wonder whether she really understands why that is the case. Surveys by the British Dental Association have shown that 80% of owners of predominately NHS practices say that morale is low or very low. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the mental health stresses of the workforce. Some 76% said that their job was extremely or very stressful, and 45% want to leave dentistry within the next 12 months. Of the 93% who struggled to recruit a dentist to work in their practice, more than half cited associates’ reluctance to work in the NHS as the main reason they struggled to fill the vacancy. With morale through the floor and recruitment near impossible for many practices, is it any wonder that NHS dentistry is in the state it is?

Of course, this is true across so much of our NHS and social care sector: workforce is the critical problem. Many hon. Members—notably the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—frequently urge the Government to bring forward a credible workforce strategy for all parts of the NHS. It is long, long overdue.

I will briefly share some testimonies from NHS dentists working on the frontline. One dentist in Shropshire said that the date of this debate

“exactly matches the last day that I will be providing NHS dentistry after 17 years of service.”

They said that the contract has not been fit for purpose for a long time and that covid has broken what was already a strained system. We thank them for their service and wish them well, but we are sad to lose them.

A dentist in east Devon who had lost two members of staff said:

“A large number of our patients are on benefits or have low incomes and with a huge increase in energy bills on the horizon this number is bound to increase. I have had 3 days off during the last 12 months…I’m tired, not sleeping, close to burning out.”

These are shocking testimonies from the frontline.

It is not just dentists who are seeing these problems; patients are feeling the impact of this situation harshly, as hon. Members across the House will know from their casework. In a recent Adjournment debate about Bristol and the south-west, I raised the issue of a pregnant constituent who was unable to access care at that critical time. This is the No. 1 issue raised by Healthwatch. Patients are struggling. As we know from YouGov and as we have heard today, 20% of patients are resorting to DIY dentistry. The security that NHS dentistry provides to so many people in this country is being eroded, and it will be eroded until that safety net is no longer there.

We have heard some severe challenges from Government Back Benchers about the Government’s long-term view on the survival of NHS dentistry. With the cost of living crisis squeezing households across the country, people will be faced with choosing between their health, heating their homes or putting food on the table. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, people are being priced out.

The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was very kind about some of my expertise in the field. We have worked together collegiately in other areas—on trailer safety, notably. Generally, I think devolved budgets and personal budgets are a good thing, and I have always advocated empowering patients, but, sadly, their use has been reduced in social care and they are not being utilised. I am not sure that they are the answer in this particular area, but something radical clearly needs to be done about the contracts.

I say gently to the Conservative party that that the Labour party does not think it acceptable that young children are in hospital or toothless while £4.6 billion-worth of loans float out of the Treasury, while the personal protective equipment contract is written down, or while whatever other ill management of the Budget we have seen from this Government happens. I personally look forward to a debate between the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on the efficacy of the Government’s management of the economy. That would be a well-informed debate and I would certainly back it.

I say to the Minister that we have seen no evidence about dentistry being a priority for the Department of Health and Social Care. The new White Paper, which came out yesterday, talks about better integration across primary and community health, adult social care, public health and housing, but there is no mention of dentistry. Again, as a lot of people have said, making dentistry part of our general community service would be a good thing.

The debate has highlighted that the problem was urgent even before the pandemic. There is no data; it is clear that dentistry is an outlier of public and community health. That is a long-term problem. I am afraid that I do not think that the Government have taken it seriously in their recent White Papers. We would all support the Minister in that battle at the Department of Health and in bringing forward something to address referrals to the contract much more urgently.

16:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate and I am pleased that he is seeing a local improvement after we met recently. I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing the debate.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) that we have seen a level of interest in and concern about the matter across the Chamber, and that we need to ensure that we take some of the politics out of it because there are some difficult steps to take to improve dental services across the board. I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose clinical experience is so helpful in the debate. I reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that since I came into post in September, dentistry has absolutely been a priority for me. I have been working night and day to try to make some short and long-term improvements, because I am live to all the concerns that have been raised.

We have set up some joint working, which was not happening before, between NHS England, the chief dental officer and the Department, and I meet the BDA regularly because we are serious about reform. I say to any dentists watching the debate that I absolutely understand the problems that make delivering an NHS contract unbelievably difficult. The contract is the No. 1 long-term issue that we have to deal with, and we are starting progress on that as soon as possible. I will come to some specifics shortly, but first let me mention covid.

I know that there has been some concern that covid is a lame excuse but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, it has had a significant impact on access to dental services in the past 18 months. When lockdown happened, services were immediately reduced; only urgent services were allowed. That continued for a significant period. It was not until 8 June 2020 that practices were allowed to open for up to 20% of normal activity and it was not until last year that that went up to 60% and, towards the end of the year, to 65%. Although dentists were compensated for their loss of income during that period, the backlog that that generated is shown in all our postbags right now.

I place on record my thanks to dental teams up and down the country. Urgent appointments went back to pre-pandemic levels in December 2020, but with only 85% of activity allowed the backlogs will only grow. We need to be honest about that; the impact is significant. I completely understand the pressures that that is putting on dentists. We are keen to support dentistry where we can to get it up to 85%. It has been difficult during omicron with staff sicknesses and patients having to cancel when they become covid positive, and I absolutely recognise the stress and strain that covid has put on the system, but we have to be honest. I think it was the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) who mentioned this, and I am happy to accept the difficulties we face. There were problems before covid and there are those same problems post covid, and we are absolutely focused on starting to tackle them.

Let me make a couple of points. There is no patient registration system for dentistry—that is one of the myths. It is not like GP practices, where someone signs up and is then on the list. Patients can go from dentist to dentist if there is one available, and we are making sure that we open up capacity where it exists.

We have written to all dentists to ask them to update their capacity so that we can put it on the website mentioned by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and we have also asked them to run a cancellation list. If someone cancels, the practice will be able actively to contact the next person on the list. Capacity is being generated by that, but I am aware of the problems with capacity across the board. We have talked about many parts of the country, such as Norfolk and Devon, that are experiencing capacity issues, but all parts of the country have experienced a squeeze in the number of appointments available.

A couple of weeks ago, we announced £50 million to help with some of those issues. I know that some Members have been quite dismissive of that this afternoon, but we know that it will cover the period to the end of this financial year to buy some urgent capacity for the system and to help deliver more than 300,000 appointments that currently cannot happen. There has been good uptake, even in the few weeks since the money was announced. Regions across the country are signing up and because the payments to dentists are much better than under the current contract, there is an appetite among dentists. That shows that if we remunerate dentists adequately they have an interest in taking on NHS work.

I encourage Members from all parties to contact their local commissioners, because we want to ensure that that money is used. If there is no interest, or if they are struggling to spend the money, they should let us know. NHS England has been in contact with local commissioners to get that feedback so that we can make the best use of the money and buy as much capacity as possible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the Minister think that it is acceptable for commissioners to take 20 months commissioning a service when we have dentists who want to take that work and take on that surgery?

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. I will come on to that point, which is valid. We want to increase capacity and there are dentists who want to take on NHS work. When contracts are handed back, we have to do the whole procurement process, and when there is an interested party, even when they are ready to sign on the dotted line, that takes a considerable amount of time. In the Department, we are looking at how we can change the procurement process. It often falls in the lap of local commissioners, but they are stuck with the procedures they have to follow. I am keen to see how, when someone is willing to take up a contract, we can enable that to happen as quickly as possible.

We have also relaxed the upper tolerance threshold and increased activity from 104% to 110% of dental activity. The current contract penalises dentists if they go over their contracted work, which is a perverse disincentive when dentists have capacity and want to take on extra work.

Before I touch on the nub of the problem, I will mention prevention. I am pleased that prevention is being considered and that the Government’s proposals on water fluoridation are part of the Health and Care Bill. I hope Opposition Members will support us when the Bill comes back from the Lords. We are also looking at options for how to introduce supervised tooth brushing in parts of the country where there is the greatest need. I reassure hon. Members that the prevention and oral health element is as key as getting dental procedures done.

The dental contract is the crux of the matter, and we are absolutely committed to reform. I met the BDA this week to start negotiations. We are looking at some quick wins over the next 12 months and some long-term contractual reform to the UDAs. We have started informal negotiations, and the formal negotiations will start in April. We all—the BDA, patients, MPs and the Department —know the urgency. It cannot be a long, protracted negotiation. However, we are working well with the BDA. We are keen to get negotiations under way and to reach a resolution as quickly as possible. We have to make the NHS a better and more attractive place to work, because dentists have other options; I cannot remember which Member said it, but dentists are voting with their feet when it comes to where they want to practice.

On the recruitment, retention and training of dentists, Health Education England published its “Advancing Dental Care Review” in September. It is working through how we can train not just more dentists but the whole dental team, and on how we can upskill dental technicians and dental nurses. We will bring forward legislative changes to enable other members of the dental team to take on more roles. We are setting up centres of dental development in those areas of the country with the biggest shortages, which tend to be coastal and rural. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) about Norfolk—I think I heard that several times. We are looking at where in the country those dental deserts are and whether we can match them to centres of dental development.

Members may not realise that this week the Department announced a consultation with the General Dental Council on the registration of international dentists and whether we can put in place a process to recognise the qualifications of dentists from around the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned. The overseas registration exam, which they have to take, was suspended throughout the whole of covid, so we have a backlog of around 700 dentists waiting to take it. The first exams started a couple of weeks ago, and there are exams in place for the rest of the year to try to get through that backlog. We are confident that we can do that.

We need to work on how we recognise existing qualifications to remove the barrier of having to do an exam. Again, I encourage colleagues to respond positively to the consultation on the GDC website and to the developments it is making. My hon. Friend the Father of the House has written to me about international dentists having to take the exams within five years of their first attempt, and whether those rules can be relaxed. That is also part of the consultation. We very much recognise that covid has had an impact on those rules too.

I reassure colleagues that I am working on bringing NHS England, dentists and the BDA together so that we can make a difference as quickly as possible. The changes in the Health and Care Bill on integrated care systems and having accountable people for commissioning locally are crucial. Integrated care boards will be statutory from 1 July, and will have accountable officers. I strongly urge colleagues to speak to their ICBs or CCGs, because there are differences in practice across the country. Some commission dentistry really well, some not so well. Very often, if the money allocated to dentistry is not ringfenced, and if it is not spent locally, it goes into other healthcare provision and is lost from dentistry. I encourage Members to hold the feet of their local commissioning bodies to the fire on what they are doing with the money given to them. We are here to support them, and work will be done on dentistry commissioning going forward.

In the short time I have had, I hope I have been able to provide assurances that dealing with the situation is not without its challenges. There is no silver bullet that will resolve all the problems. There is not a quick-fix solution, but I am working at pace, as is the Department, to reform the contract. Work is starting in April on the formal negotiations, and I hope that will improve recruitment and retention in dentistry. We value the work that dentists do, which for too long has gone unrecognised and has been a Cinderella part of the service. The people who have suffered are not just the dentists, but the patients.

16:25

[Peter Aldous]

It has been a very interesting debate, and we have heard some great ideas. It has largely been consensual, although I welcomed the little bit of sparring, because it added to proceedings. One thing I did not do was thank the dentistry heroes during the covid pandemic. They are the people who have really been on the frontline.

I enjoyed the interludes into Shakespeare from my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). Ian Fleming was also quoted, and I could cornily reply by saying the whole debate should leave us very shaken and stirred.

Some interesting issues on funding have been raised. I take on board a lot of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is no longer in his place, about creating innovative funding solutions. He is right to say that there is not endless money, but I feel that NHS dentistry has been the Cinderella service when it comes to funding. I sense that part of the problem is that it has been shunted off into the sidings of the NHS.

We heard three very useful points from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who basically said that the health of our teeth is inextricably linked to our health service. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that our mouths are not divorced from our bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose contribution was really significant, said that dentistry and the mouth need to go back into the body. I sense that if we do that, the funding issue will begin to be solved. The primary and secondary parts of the NHS, and the mental health side, will realise that we need to get dentistry right, because that will have a positive knock-on impact on the remainder of the service.

Prevention is vital. It was striking that I had four interventions on the importance of fluoridation, innovative working such as supervised toothbrushing, and getting into schools and care homes—that is so important as well.

We keep coming back to the need for contract reform. It was striking that we heard that it is not a question of dentists going out into the private sector, having been lured by large sums of money. It is a question of their being driven out by the soul-destroying system under the existing contract. It was helpful to hear the Minister say that there were some quick wins being put in place and that the negotiations start in earnest in April.

We do not want to just go away, pat ourselves on the back and say that we have had a great debate. We want meaningful progress. When I proposed my amendment to the Health and Care Bill, one of the things that I wanted was annual reporting, to see where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, talked about coming back in six months’ time for a progress report, and I hope that the Government will agree to that. We can look at how we do that—perhaps through another Backbench Business Committee debate.

Ms Ali, you are looking at me. I have summed up as best I can. It has been a great debate, but let us not stop here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

16:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

Thursday 10 February 2022

Ministry of Defence Annual Estimate 2022-23

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2022-23, will be laid before the House on 10 February 2022 as HC 980. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2022-23, including an increase for Royal Navy and Army Regulars and decreases for the Army Regular Reserve and Army Reserve. Full details can be found in the publication.

These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.

[HCWS604]

Ministry of Defence Supplementary Votes 2021-22

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The “Ministry of Defence Votes A Supplementary Votes 2021-22”, will be laid before the House on 10 February 2022 as HC 981. This outlines the increased maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service in the Royal Naval Reserve Officers subject to additional duties commitment (ADC) from 40 to 80 during financial year 2021-22.

These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.

[HCWS605]

Ukraine

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Further to my commitment to keep this House informed on the security situation in Ukraine, I am today providing an update on the package of defensive equipment the UK is sending to Ukraine.

I can today announce that, in response to a request from the Ukrainian Government, we are providing additional defensive equipment including body armour, helmets and combat boots. The first shipments arrived in Kyiv this week. They are a purely defensive capability and pose no threat to Russia. This package, requested by the Ukrainians, complements the training and capabilities that Ukraine already has and those that are being provided by the UK and other allies in Europe and the United States.

The UK Ministry of Defence has a long-standing relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts. We unequivocally support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support them through diplomacy and by providing defensive capabilities to Ukraine, focusing on areas where the Ukrainians seek our assistance.

[HCWS608]

War Pensions Scheme Uprating 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2022 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2022 will take place from the week beginning 11 April. Rates for 2022 are increasing by 3.1% in line with the September 2021 consumer price index.

The Times and The Sunday Times: News UK Undertakings

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

On 1 February 2021 News UK submitted an application requesting the Secretary of State to release in full the undertakings accepted in 2019. The 2019 undertakings were accepted in lieu of the conditions put in place when the newspapers were acquired by News International in 1981.

The conditions included provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors of Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd, and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of newspapers.

The undertakings accepted in 2019 made changes to the conditions, to allow for sharing of journalistic resources between the two publications and to strengthen the arrangements relating to the independent national directors. News UK now seeks the release of the undertakings in their entirety.

On 24 June DCMS issued a public “invitation to comment”, which included a redacted copy of the application, and the written views received from the editors and independent national directors. On 30 July, DCMS requested Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to advise by 24 September on the public interest considerations and changes to market circumstances relevant to the case, respectively. The CMA’s report concludes that releasing the undertakings would have a significantly positive impact on News UK’s financial position and ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Ofcom’s report concludes that the impact on media plurality of releasing the undertakings is likely to be limited and that, on balance, releasing the undertakings is unlikely to operate against the public interest needs for free expression of opinion and accuracy of news.

On 25 November, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, I announced that, having taken into account the reports and all relevant information submitted to the Department, I was minded to grant the request by News UK and release the undertakings. I consulted publicly on this minded-to decision and did not receive any further evidence relevant to my decision. I therefore confirm that I am satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the acceptance of the undertakings in 2019 and that, having considered the public interest considerations applying to newspapers, the undertakings are no longer appropriate or necessary for the purpose they were intended to achieve and so should be released.

In accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, I have taken a final decision to approve the application and will notify News UK that the undertakings relating to The Times and The Sunday Times are to be released.

[HCWS607]

Mental Health Strategy

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

This week, the UK has marked Children’s Mental Health Week with the theme of “growing together.” I am grateful for the brilliant work of our vibrant voluntary and community sector, who are encouraging children and young people to take action to look after their mental health and learn how they can support others.

Across the country, we are talking more about our mental health and wellbeing than ever before. Thanks to the trailblazing courage of campaigners in the public eye, and thousands of quiet conversations in homes, schools and workplaces, more and more people now feel comfortable opening up about their mental health.

Over 4 million people have used our Every Mind Matters resources to make a tailored mind plan to help them take active steps to look after their wellbeing. Initiatives like “Thriving at Work” have driven improvements to workplace wellbeing. The NHS is offering care and support to more people with mental illnesses than ever before, backed by record levels of investment, workforce expansion and the advancing mental health equalities strategy. And we are reforming the Mental Health Act to improve care for people who are acutely unwell and to address ethnic disparities in detention rates.

Since March 2020, the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic and the impacts on mental health have fostered a strong spirit of innovation in the NHS and collaboration across Government. The Government published a cross-Government covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan for 2021-22 in March 2021, backed by an additional £500 million. As part of this additional investment, we are accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that an estimated 3 million children and young people (around 35% of pupils in England) will be covered by these teams by 2023.

But I know there is much more to do. That is why I am announcing my intention to develop a new long-term, cross-Government mental health strategy in the coming year.

The Government will launch a public discussion paper this spring to inform the development of the strategy. This will set us up for a wide-ranging and ambitious conversation about potential ways to improve the nation’s mental health and wellbeing over the coming decade, both within and beyond Government and the NHS. We will be engaging widely, especially with people with experience of mental ill-health, to develop the strategy and build consensus. I will be calling on all parts of society—including teachers, businesses, voluntary organisations, and health and social care leaders—to set out their proposals for how we can shift the dial on mental health.

Alongside this, preventing suicides is a key priority for this Government. I am acutely aware that suicide prevention requires specific, co-ordinated action and national focus, and I am committed to working with the sector over the coming year to review our 2012 suicide prevention strategy for England. I am today announcing around an additional £1.5 million to top up our existing £4 million grant fund, which will help support the suicide prevention voluntary and community sector to meet the needs of people at risk of suicide or in crisis.

[HCWS609]