Israel: US Embassy

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend knows the region well, and he puts it very clearly—that is the hope of all Members of the House, and it has been for too long. We must now work out how we can move forward from this position with renewed urgency to make it happen.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Unlike any of his predecessors, President Trump has dangerously inflamed every frozen world conflict that he has addressed. Has the time come to see this man as someone who believes in America first, and the rest of the world nowhere? Should we now say that the invitation to him for an informal, or formal, visit is rescinded? People can be invited, and they can be disinvited.

[Alistair Burt]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. An invitation has been given and no date has been set, and that remains the position of the United Kingdom Government.

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The issue about licensing could apply to any off-label prescribing. What we are talking about for some would, in theory, have to apply to all, because there is a risk to everything. That suggests a provision of licensing for all, which is not where we are going. This matter is not closed—let us be quite clear about that. If this measure does not go through today, the matter is not closed.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will deal with these two interventions, and then, if colleagues do not mind, I will have to make progress.

[Paul Flynn]

I have long known the right hon. Gentleman and greatly respect him, but today the House has spoken on this with one voice, from both sides, with expert opinion and personal opinion. Only one voice has been silent in this debate, and that is the voice of the industry, the ABPI, which has an interest in its profits. Is its plea to keep its profits intact the only reason he is making this piffling objection to the Bill?

[Alistair Burt]

I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and that last bit was rather unworthy of him. I have not seen anything from the ABPI, but having picked up this measure from my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, dealt with the evidence, as I have seen it, and had conversations with officials, I am perfectly convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I withdraw the remark immediately and apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).

I am seeking to find a bit of space to explain, in the face of a House that plainly does not accept it, why the Government hold their position. I am very anxious to convey it, because I believe there is a risk that people outside will take the view that something is preventing people from getting access to drugs that they may want. I think that that position is wrong, and that is why I want to make clear the Government’s position.

Since last year, the Government have had a series of meetings with the people involved. We have received input from the MS Society and the General Medical Council. It is clear from the conversations the Government have had that this is a very complex area with a number of factors at play, including easy access to robust evidence for prescribers; information about licensing status and what it means; and clear and more accessible information for researchers and charities on how to get research findings into the system and through to licensing, if that is the approach they wish to follow. What is also clear is the genuine commitment to work together to make those things happen and to investigate whether there are other non-legislative improvements that can be made to support appropriate medicines use and benefit NHS patients.

We know that there are issues with access to medicines, but they are in no way unique to unlicensed or off-label medicines use. There are areas where there is far too much variation in the use of licensed, NICE-appraised medicines, and we are working hard with the NHS to address that, but there is no single magic bullet. The measures before us today are more likely to impede access than to facilitate it. What is more, they would be of benefit to only one medicine, one condition and one group of patients at a time.

We are committed to working with NHS England, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, NICE, the GMC, the all-party group on off-patent drugs, and patient and professional groups, to address the issues that the round-table group identified. MHRA, NICE and the GMC are committed to working together to improve the understanding of the differences in licence status and how clinicians can practically work with that. The GMC is preparing a topic for its website to dispel myths and confusion about off-label prescribing and to explain how its guidance applies. NICE and the GMC are also considering further joint work to support clinicians in discussing and sharing knowledge.

As doctors may prescribe unlicensed medicines where it is necessary to do so to meet the specific needs of individual patients, and given that patients need sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision along with their doctor, NICE is looking at making more use of patient decision aids further to support implementation of its clinical guidelines, to help individuals work through the pros and cons of different treatment options.

We are looking at how we might provide better information to help researchers and other stakeholders know how they can propose subject matter for NICE’s clinical evidence summaries and for updates to NICE guidance. NICE will be working with the “British National Formulary” to ensure that off-label uses are included where there is robust evidence to support them and that they are presented in a standard way to help clinicians to use them.

We are committed to working with the research community to set out the pathways and options for bringing research evidence to the attention of clinicians more systematically. This will involve working with a number of bodies in the research community, including the Association of Medical Research Charities, and I know there is a commitment to do so. The outcomes of the accelerated access review will also feed into that.

Let me say a little on the detail of why I do not think the Bill is the right way forward and about what is the best way forward. The Government do not support the Bill, just as the then Government did not support the virtually identical measure introduced by Jonathan Evans last year. I want to be absolutely clear about why that is the case: when it comes to the primary objective, which is to make sure that our NHS can treat everyone according to the most up-to-date and robust evidence, the hon. Member for Torfaen and I are in complete agreement. However, legislating in this way is not the way to achieve that goal.

There are clear benefits in using licensed drugs based on evidence about their safety profile, side effects, efficacy and so on. The guidance from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the General Medical Council is clear that a licensed medicine being used within its licence indications should be the first choice for patient care, and that is exactly as it should be. However, the guidance also makes it clear that clinicians are free to use their clinical judgment to treat their patients with a licensed medicine used outside its licensed indication—off-label prescribing—or, indeed, an unlicensed medicine where such a medicine is the best clinical choice for the patient or there is no licensed medicine to meet the particular need. In fact, the guidance from the MHRA and the GMC sets out a hierarchy of medicine use.

[Paul Flynn]

The right hon. Gentleman prays in aid the MHRA, which is entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Why does he not confess that he has taken this cruel and unfair stand of following what the industry has told him to maximise its profits and put patients last?

[Alistair Burt]

That is not the case.

Lethal Autonomous Robotics

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The basis of the Government’s argument, made by me and by my noble Friend in the other place, is that the system of law and conventions that govern the development of weapons would prevent anyone from developing the weapon in such a manner as the hon. Member for Llanelli has suggested. It would not fit export criteria, so I do not think that we are at odds on that. The issue is whether the legal framework is sufficiently robust to prevent that. The United Kingdom, having made its own decision that it is not developing these weapons, believes that the basis of the legal system on weaponry is such as to prevent that development.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Minister explain the distinction that he makes? In a meeting held in this place, one of the noble Lords with great experience in the Navy gave an example of a weapon that is used now which, once the parameters have been set, would work entirely automatically without any human intervention. What is the difference between that and the prospect of fully autonomous weapons?

[Alistair Burt]

My understanding, having discussed this with officials, is that it is the setting of the parameters that is the human element. For example, once the parameters were set of some existing weapons system that would seek to identify and defend itself against missiles coming at one of our ships in a situation of conflict, plainly an operator would not be needed to press the button each second to fire off the missiles—the system will do that automatically. That is an automatic system where the parameters have been set. What is envisaged through lethal autonomous robotics is a step beyond that, which no one has reached. To use the definition that the hon. Member for Llanelli gave right at the beginning and which I cited, that would be weapons systems which, once activated, could select and engage targets without any further human intervention. Those are not drones; it is a step beyond.

The hon. Lady has rightly observed that this is a complicated area, where further international discussion would help to clarify the legal and political implications of the possible future development of this technology. Like others, we think that the Human Rights Council is not the right forum for the discussion, but we stand ready to participate in the international debate and we agree that the convention on certain conventional weapons seems the right place for this important issue.

The hon. Lady asked why the UK was the only country to resist the call for a moratorium. I have set out our willingness to adopt a more restrictive policy than the legal freedom afforded, and our commitment to uphold international humanitarian law and to encourage others to do the same. I do not believe that our approach is so different from that of the United States and our European allies.

We did not interpret the discussion in Geneva in quite the same way as the hon. Lady. We believe that French and US attitudes are very similar to our own. Although some states spoke in favour of some sort of regulation or control, many did not, and we should not take that as universal support for a moratorium, given the number of states that did not express a view. Our sense is that support for a moratorium is far less than indicated by the hon. Lady. That does not in any way negate the concerns, but we are not quite sure that people are where she suggests they are in relation to a moratorium.

The law of armed conflict already addresses the ethical and moral aspects of these weapons systems to ensure adherence to principles of discrimination, proportionality, military necessity and humanity to protect people from unnecessary suffering. The selection and prosecution of all targets is always based on rigorous scrutiny which complies with international humanitarian law, UK rules of engagement and targeting policy.

The hon. Lady also asked me to elaborate on what the Government mean by human control and what level of human control they believe is sufficient, which is also the point behind the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). Targets will always be positively identified as legitimate military objectives with an appropriate level of command authority and control in their selection and prosecution. The UK is legally obliged to ensure that all weapons and associated equipment that it obtains or plans to acquire or develop comply with the UK’s treaty and other obligations in accordance with international humanitarian law. We do this through legal weapons review. For equipment to be procured, it must satisfy those key legal principles. The policy on the necessity, responsibility and conduct of article 36 reviews will be placed in the Library of the House.

International humanitarian law was designed to withstand future changes in technology. Although we have been discussing matters that are still far beyond the present technology, we believe that the legal system has in mind such future developments. We encourage all states to meet their obligations under international humanitarian law. We believe that the development and use of weapons should always be fully compliant with international law, including the Geneva conventions. We are working closely with the Government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross on an initiative to strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, and one of our primary objectives for the arms trade treaty was that it should put compliance with international humanitarian law at the heart of Governments’ decisions about the legitimate arms trade. We have voiced, and will continue to voice, our concerns with those states that do not live up to their obligations.

As I mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom does not have fully autonomous weapon systems, and the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology programme does not fund research into fully autonomous weapons. No planned offensive systems are to have the capability to prosecute targets without involving a human in the decision-making process.

There are a number of areas where United Kingdom policy is currently more restrictive than the legal freedoms allowed. We consider that to be entirely prudent. However, we cannot predict the future; we cannot know now how this technology will develop. Given the challenging situations in which we expect our armed forces personnel to operate now and in the future, it would be wrong to deny them legitimate and effective capabilities that can help them to achieve their objectives as quickly and safely as possible. We have a responsibility to the people who protect us, and must therefore reserve the right to develop and use technology as it evolves in accordance with established international law. Our current position on the development of these weapons is very clear, and I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli for giving me this opportunity to explain that to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We continue to work across all three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty to build on the success of last year’s review conference in New York. I am particularly proud of the work we have done towards ensuring the first conference of nuclear weapon states, which was held recently in Paris—the P5 conference—in which further progress was made, particularly towards disarmament. Does not the tumult of the Arab spring mean it would be a good idea to advance the date of the planned conference next year? That would give us a real chance positively to involve both Iran and Israel.

Escape of Taliban Prisoners

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask what repercussions the escape of Taliban prisoners will have on United Kingdom soldiers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for raising the subject of this serious incident. It might help the House if I give some of the background to it.

At 4 o’clock in the morning on 25 April, 476 prisoners escaped from the national security unit in Sarposa prison, Kandahar. This prison is under the control of the central prisons directorate of the Afghan Ministry of Justice. A number of prisoners have been recaptured by Afghan security forces, and they continue to search for escaped prisoners. The Afghan Ministry of Justice will conduct a joint investigation into the escape with the national directorate of security. The head of the CPD, General Jamshid, is travelling to Kandahar and General Tahir, of the detention and investigation section of the NDS, is already there. In the meantime, all prisons in Afghanistan have been put on alert and have reviewed their security accordingly.

The UK has had no involvement with infrastructure builds, training, mentoring or any other support to Sarposa prison. We continue to support the development of the Afghan prison sector by assisting the Afghan Ministry of Justice’s central prisons directorate in developing prison infrastructure, policies and working practices; supporting and structurally maintaining the high security unit within Policharkhi prison in Kabul; providing training and mentoring to improve prison officer standards; and funding the construction of a prison in Lashkar Gah.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is a serious event that vividly underlines the importance of building a secure prisons sector in Afghanistan. We urge the Afghan Government to put every effort into recapturing those who have escaped in order to minimise the danger and damage to anyone—be they UK forces and personnel or anyone else—and to apply lessons learned from the planned investigation to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Paul Flynn]

The valiant professionalism of our soldiers in Afghanistan is as distinguished as that of any in our proud military history. They deserve our gratitude and they also deserve our vigilance to protect them against avoidable risks. This was not just a small incident—it was a disaster. Many of those who escaped were captured originally at grievous cost in blood and treasure. Now hundreds are liberated to attack our soldiers again.

The Government have been accused of being optimistic in their faith in the reliability and loyalty of the Afghan police and army. This is the second major escape from Kandahar. Three British soldiers were murdered by an Afghan soldier. This month, the Afghan police stood aside as United Nations peacekeepers were lynched. The Afghan security services have proved themselves, to a large extent, to be endemically corrupt, inept and probably, in this case, infiltrated by the Taliban. Their loyalty is often for sale. When will the Government realise that they cannot build an ethical reliable army and police force on rotten corrupt foundations? Will they now concentrate on a political solution in Afghanistan and abandon our misplaced trust in the Afghan army and police, which is now a deadly threat to the lives of our British soldiers? Optimism and trust become naivety when we do not know who to trust.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand, and go along with, a certain amount of what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a significant event—a disaster, to use his term. It is a disaster in security terms; of course it is. Were those held in the prison detained at great cost? Yes, they must have been, to all who were involved. I understand that only three or five of them were originally UK detainees who were passed into the Afghan system, but that does not mean that others who were involved in capturing and holding them were not upholding the very standards that he was talking about, or that they have not been let down by the security situation. That is why there must be an investigation, and why we must find out what happened.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, it is of huge importance to us all that there be a transfer of power and responsibility to allow Afghanis to be responsible for their security, because there is no other answer. Security cannot be held indefinitely by those outside Afghanistan. I am sure that he is well aware of the political process that is going on in parallel with the transition process and everything else. I do not think that those members of the Afghan national security force who, along with the international security assistance force, were involved so much in Helmand last year in clearing out the Taliban and working so hard to create a safe space for their fellow Afghanis would quite recognise his description of them. Of course, maximum effort must be given to the training of new security forces—both police and army. Loyalty must be an absolute basic and training must be rigorous, but it is not correct to dismiss them all because of individual incidents.

That this matter is serious there is no doubt. We must get to the bottom of it and there must be tightening regarding those responsible and the security system. The future for Afghanistan is, as the hon. Gentleman makes out, a political solution, but the military and tactical support we are providing to the Afghanis, who must ultimately be responsible for their own security and safety, must continue despite the setbacks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

7. What recent steps his Department has taken to support measures to reduce the incidence of corruption in Afghanistan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We are encouraging the Government of Afghanistan to live up to the commitments they made on anti-corruption at the conferences in Kabul and London last year. In addition, I met yesterday with General McMaster, the head of the international security assistance force’s anti-corruption task force, to discuss how the coalition could assist Afghanistan in bringing those involved in corrupt practices to justice.

[Paul Flynn]

Has it been worth the sacrifice of 350 of our valiant British soldiers to protect the election-rigging President of Afghanistan who refuses to arrest his corrupt brother, the vice president who was caught smuggling $51 million to his bolthole in Dubai, or the Government cronies who have stolen 70% of the country’s GDP from the national bank? Is not the truth that it is not the system that is corrupt in Afghanistan, but that corruption is the system?

[Alistair Burt]

There are, of course, wider issues involving national security that contribute to the presence of our forces in Afghanistan, in company with those of 47 other nations. It is not appropriate to discuss individuals, but I should say that the British Government are entirely clear: no one is above the law, no one is above inquiry, and the people of Afghanistan deserve a system of justice that ensures justice for all and that those involved in corruption are brought to book.