Brain Tumour Research Funding

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered brain tumour research funding.

I am hopeful that we will have nodding heads on both sides of the House for this debate this afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate.

I pay particular tribute to those families around the UK who are living with a brain tumour diagnosis. When I meet some of these families, I see an enduring hope, when so often their outlook seems hopeless. It is for that reason that the purpose of this debate is to demand a greater emphasis from Government and to accelerate the effort to find more effective methods to treat patients with brain tumours and ensure that they have the best care and rehabilitation possible.

Many hon. Members will remember that back in 2015, the Realf family presented a petition with 120,129 signatories calling for an increase in national funding for the research into brain tumours. The Petitions Committee picked it up and the following Westminster Hall debate led to the Government Minister at the time establishing a task and finish group to look at the issue. That group published its report in 2018 and the Government subsequently announced a £20 million fund for research into brain tumours, boosted by a pledge of a further £25 million by Cancer Research UK.

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been on this journey with him since that quite remarkable Westminster Hall debate in 2016. We said then that we needed the money; we got the money, but now we find that there are structural problems still standing in the way of the progress we need. To me, that says that there is probably nobody in charge of the strategy within the Department. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can achieve anything in this debate, it will be to hear a commitment from the Treasury Bench that somebody will take charge of this strategy and make it happen?

[Derek Thomas]

Of course, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Actually, I want the Government to go further and make brain tumour research the priority of all cancer research, because we have not seen the progress that we should have in that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point, which reinforces, in all of us, our awareness of just how awful this diagnosis is, and it is the answer to the question that every person who receives such a diagnosis asks their doctor: “How long have I got?” Eight or nine months is no time at all.

Dr Matt Williams, a clinical oncologist, is quoted in the report:

“Every week I have to tell patients that there is nothing more we can offer. I have now been a consultant for 10 years and these conversations are the same now as when I started.”

That is why a brain tumour is a devastating diagnosis. A patient quoted in the report says:

“It’s devastating and living with a time bomb in your head.”

That is a very good description of what it must feel like. In those circumstances, what do patients and loved ones want? What we would all want is to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to try to change that.

[Mr Carmichael]

I speak about this publicly from time to time, and I am always struck by the number of people who say to me, “Thank you for doing that, because this took my father”—or their brother, their neighbour, their friend or whoever—“and I had no idea that this had been their life experience.” When I was growing up, 40 or 50 years ago, a cancer diagnosis really was not talked about—it was almost taboo—and I think we are in the same place with brain cancers. If we are to make the progress we need, we all have to start talking about this much more. The experience has to be shared.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To borrow a phrase, it’s good to talk about brain cancer. That is why we are here in this Chamber today. We are here to raise awareness, because loved ones dying remains, among some people, a great taboo, about which we are fearful of saying anything. When my late first wife died of cancer at the age of 26, I was struck by the fact that my colleagues at work, though wonderful people, found it almost impossible to mention what had happened when I went back to work. I understand why, because before it happened to me I would have been like them. I would have thought I would say the wrong thing or cause someone to break down in tears. When it happens to you, you come to realise that there is nothing special to say; you just have to go up to the person and say, “How are you?” and listen. Yes, they will cry and you will cry, but that is so much better than people hiding it inside, with the suffering that it brings.

That is what this report is trying to do—it is trying to make sure that we are doing everything we can. There are good reasons why brain cancer is proving so difficult to treat. I learnt about that, as did the other members of the inquiry panel. The brain is a complex organ. I had never heard of the blood-brain barrier before. I am not sure I still understand it, but I heard a lot about it in the evidence we received. We learnt about treatments that had been tried and had failed, and about the desperation of those with brain tumours to get on to trials that might just offer some hope, not of a cure, but of a few more months. For someone who has received a diagnosis of a brain tumour, every second—let alone every minute, week or month—is extremely precious. We heard of the despair of people who are unable to get this for themselves or their loved ones, and it is so particularly poignant when it is children who have a brain tumour.

So we are calling for a renewed and determined focus on doing every single thing we can to change the situation, not because we are naive about the difficulties, which are many, but because it is the very least we can do for the people who find themselves in this position. So, of course, we have called for greater investment. I thought the hon. Member for St Ives explained well why the funds that have been made available and set aside for brain tumour research—I welcome them enormously—have not all been allocated and spent. It is not for want of willingness; it relates to the point he made about the lack of suitable research proposals coming forward and the frustration, which came across so clearly in that one evidence session in particular, of those who have put their research proposals to the research bodies, have been knocked back and feel, “They did not really understand what we are trying to do.” That is because those who sit on those panels may not have expertise in the field of brain tumour research, which is why we strongly encourage the research councils to look more widely at, and more favourably upon, proposals for brain tumour research.

We have a funding system that has been built in silos. It needs to be better joined up, from basic science through to clinical trials. At this point, I wish to pay tribute, as we all would, to the clinicians, scientists, doctors and others who work their socks off to try to crack this problem and find a treatment. That is why we have made some very specific recommendations. The example of biobanking and tissue samples seemed so simple when people talked about it. When we are dealing with any disease, but particularly this one, does it not make sense to pool all of the information that we have available about what we have learnt, what we still do not know, what may work and what may not? Clearly, that is not happening, even though it is a simple thing to do so that anyone undertaking research can draw upon all the available material as they apply their mind, scientific skill and determination to finding a cure.

We are also calling for patients with brain tumours to have equity of access to trials of new anti-cancer drugs that currently may be available only to patients with other types of malignant cancers. There can be a fear that if other people are brought into the trial, it will somehow skew the result. However, if a person is dying, that is not their concern. Their concern is: “Might this possibly work to save my life or the life of the person I love?”

I hope that this report and the views of all those people who so generously gave their time—we thank all of them—will have an impact as, collectively, we roll up our sleeves, redouble our efforts, and express an even greater determination to find treatments and cures for this cruel disease that shortens the lives of so many people whom we have come to know or know already and love. What keeps us going in difficult times is hope, and I think these recommendations offer exactly that. As one patient said, “If you have hope, you have life.”

Government Contracts: Randox Laboratories

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

Public Health

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Lateral flow tests are available for everyone. The vast majority of people will have access to phones or through other ways. Once people have taken the lateral flow test and registered the result, perhaps with the help of someone in their family or a friend, they can get printed proof of that by using the 119 service. If there are other ways to improve that, of course we will, but we have found that that is available to the vast majority of people, including those who might not be as familiar with technology.

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

A vaccine passport with a lateral flow test alternative is still a vaccine passport. We have seen the use of vaccine passports in other parts of the country, in Scotland and in Wales. What difference have they made to the transmission of omicron in those parts of the country?

[Sajid Javid]

I will come to that specifically in a moment, but again I have to stress that this is not a vaccine passport. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a vaccine passport, he can do that in Scotland or he can go to France or some other countries. The measure is an attempt to reduce risk from covid in a high-risk venue. It is sensible and proportionate and provides several options and flexibilities.

Health and Social Care

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for Birmingham and his local trust. It is always a pleasure to announce more money going into his trust, and he is right to highlight the Labour party’s record on PFI.

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

The question that will be asked by people in those parts of the country where the ambulance service is already in crisis, such as Cornwall and Shropshire, is: how quickly can they get this money? We are three weeks from Christmas and we are already seeing a crippling of the service in these areas. When will they see improvement?

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that ambulance trusts across the country are under pressure, which is why they have already been given an additional £55 million, well in advance of this winter, to help them prepare for and manage the pressures they are experiencing. This money is on top of that, but they already have additional funding to help support them through what will be a very challenging winter.

Randox Covid Contracts

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Why? It was because the Government were trying to get out as many tests as possible. As I said, Randox processed—[Interruption.] Just to put it into context, Randox has, to date, carried out more than 15 million tests for covid-19, and identified more than 700,000 positive cases. That is 700,000 people who might otherwise have gone on to spread the disease. As a result of this testing capacity, they received the right advice to isolate, thereby protecting their friends, their family and society at large.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am prepared to take at face value everything that she says about Randox, but it does then raise in my mind the question of what exact benefit the company had from engaging the services of Owen Paterson. That being the case, will the Minister commit now at the Dispatch Box to publish the minutes of the telephone conference call of which he was part?

[Gillian Keegan]

Obviously, I cannot answer that question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the only people who can answer that question are those at Randox and the gentleman that he referred to—Owen Paterson.

[Mr Carmichael]

rose—

[Gillian Keegan]

I am happy to give way again.

[Mr Carmichael]

Just to be quite clear about this, is the Minister saying that her Department does not hold minutes of that conference call? That, from my experience of having been in government, would be a quite remarkable departure from accepted procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gillian Keegan]

The hon. Gentleman may have missed it when I said that we were abstaining.

This is an important debate and I do take this issue very seriously. I am a professional of 30 years’ standing before coming here. My professional reputation is important to me, and I make sure that we uphold the highest standards of professionalism. Make no mistake: it is important to me to get this right. There are facts here, and I have set out the facts correctly. We do not want to play at political games and gimmicks: this is not the right time to do that. It may well play well with audiences on Members’ social media channels, but it is not the right approach.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister has made it clear that the Government are not going to oppose this motion, so we might reasonably expect it to pass. She said on a number of occasions that she will revert to the House with regard to the question of scope. The motion is very detailed on the question of scope, and we anticipate that it will become an instruction to the Government. Can she give an indication of what material her Department, or any Government Department, might hold that would not be disclosed under the terms of this motion?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in what I think has been one of the most remarkable debates I have seen since I became a Member of Parliament in 2001. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who has just removed himself from the Chamber, said that he suspects there is not much to see here. I suspect he is probably right about that. But when we hear the concession from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that no record was taken of the telephone conference call involving Lord Bethell and Owen Paterson, and when we hear the somewhat improbable history outlined by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) about the relationship between Lord Bethell and his various mobile phones, suspicious minds such as mine—and probably even worse—will ask why it would be that there is nothing much here to see.

[Gillian Keegan]

I just want to make clear what I said. We have been unable to locate a formal note of the meeting—that is what I have been told so far. That does not mean there isn’t one. We have been unable to locate one, but of course everything we have will be put in the Library.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is, indeed, an important distinction. I wonder whether the search for these minutes has extended as far as the shredding room. I say to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who will wind up the debate, that it would be helpful if the House could be told how many other documents might be within the purview of the specification outlined in the motion. That is, how many are similarly difficult to locate?

I caution those on the Treasury Bench that saying that documents and text messages and WhatsApp messages on Ministers’ phones cannot be found only lasts so long as a defence. A full inquiry is coming and the longer that somewhat less than substantial defences are thrown up, and the more dust is kicked up, the worse it will be for Government Ministers at the end of the day. If the information is there, with the knowledge and control of any Government Department, it should be disclosed under the terms of the motion, which the House is going to agree to.

The Minister said a number of times, including when I challenged her, that the Government would define the scope. With respect to her, the Government will not define the scope; it is the House that will define the scope, which has been very clearly laid out in the motion. I do not see what justification or excuse there could be, given the fairly careful construction of the motion, for not disclosing information. More important than that, even if there is a tiny loophole it is a question of doing the right thing and being seen to honour not just the letter but the spirit of the motion, which the House will pass later. That is why, to quote David Cameron again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to have the fullest possible disclosure.

[Tony Lloyd]

This is a convenient time for me to intervene because that is the point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, ministerial meetings are always minuted, but if documents are missing, what will the public believe if they find out that meetings have not been minuted? Even if it turns out in reality—in God’s time—that nothing bad happened, the public will, rightly, still believe that somebody is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Put simply, that is part of the distrust in politicians and in Government. We have to clear it up and ensure that we re-establish our reputation.

[Mr Carmichael]

One can only imagine what the public might believe in these circumstances. I fear that it may not be generous. Actually, you know what? It does not just reflect badly on the Government; it reflects badly on all of us in public life. That is why the way in which the Government have approached this whole matter since that dreadful vote two weeks ago has done so much damage to the standing of public life.

I know a bit about this issue because I spent the early years of my legal practice as a member of the civil service. I did my traineeship as a procurator fiscal depute at the Crown Office back in the dark days of the 1990s. We kept everything—we minuted everything—and when we had finished a meeting, we filed the minutes. Those pieces of paper sat in filing cabinets and archives for 30 years or however long it took, at which point they were taken out and put into the public domain. What that process of preparing files for publication taught me was that not everybody in the public service was always very careful in the way in which they filed pieces of paper. Anybody who has ever been in legal practice will know that occasionally papers for one client get mixed with papers for another.

As I say, that was back in the dark ages. I suspect that the notes prepared these days are not handwritten in fountain pens on little pieces of paper. There will be electronic records of them, and those electronic records are virtually impossible to destroy. That is why the question of documents being difficult to find stretches my credulity.

We all have respect for the Minister. When she started her speech, the only Government Members present were two Ministers, two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, a Whip and the hon. Member for Amber Valley. As I have said, I have never seen the House so poorly populated for a debate like this. Indeed, I have to say that I have never seen the civil service Box as thinly populated as it is today. That in itself is quite telling, because it comes back to the way in which the Government approach the issue. The most powerful people in any Parliament are Government Back Benchers, because they have the opportunity to defeat the Government. Anybody who has ever served in a Whips Office knows that. It is welcome that the Government will not contest the motion, but I am still worried about the lack of enthusiasm among Government Members for extracting maximum possible disclosure.

In her speech, the Minister outlined, quite properly and legitimately, the various significant achievements, including the vaccine roll-out. She reminded us of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, when we did not really know what the future held. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, we would not have expected every i to be dotted and ever t to be crossed. However, at that point we all gave a significant amount of power to the Government. This House passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, which gives massive amounts of latitude to the Government, because we all felt it necessary to give them the powers to do what was needed in a situation where nobody knew what the future held. What I fear has not been properly understood is that, with those powers, we gave the Government a responsibility, but they and many of those around Government seem to have seen it not so much as a responsibility as an opportunity for enrichment. I say to the Minister and to all her colleagues that that attitude is at the heart of the problem and is, essentially, an abuse of the powers that we gave them when we passed that emergency legislation in March 2020. That is why the motion is so important.

Like every other Member in this House, I frequently sit down with businesses in my constituency and will help them, if possible, to get rid of penalties. That includes people charged for a late VAT return and farmers penalised in a draconian manner for making a minor and unintentional error in their claim for an agricultural support payment. Sometimes we are able to help them; sometimes we have to just shrug our shoulders after we have tried and say, “I’m really sorry, I tried but these are the rules.” Those constituents will only ever listen to me deliver that message again if they can be satisfied that the rules that so adversely affect them also apply to everybody else. The real damage that the Government seek to do in the way they have handled these matters is that they will never again be able to tell other people that they should not be held to the same standard.

Covid-19 Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I know that these are important issues for the House, and particularly for my hon. Friend, who chairs the Transport Committee. I do not want to pre-empt the statement by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, but I believe that when he makes that statement, my hon. Friend will be pleased.

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

Pages 23 and 24 of the autumn and winter plan specify that, as part of plan B, the Government will introduce vaccine passports for all nightclubs, for indoor settings of 500 people or more, which presumably would include this Chamber of 650 Members, for outdoor settings of 4,000 or more, and for anywhere—that is a very big place—where there are 10,000 people. How does the Secretary of State square that with his assertion in reply to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), that the evidence on the usefulness of vaccine passports is just not there? If the evidence is not there, why are they part of plan B? The Government’s document also says that plan B could be brought into force at very short notice, so can the Secretary of State give the House some assurance that that will not happen without a vote?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We need short questions and short answers.

Covid Vaccine Passports

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will make a statement on the Government plans for covid vaccine passports.

[The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)]

Our vaccination programme has given this nation a wall of protection against this deadly virus. Data from Public Health England estimates that two doses of a covid-19 vaccine offers protection of around 96% against hospitalisation and that our jabs have prevented over 100,000 deaths, over 143,000 hospitalisations and around 24 million infections. It is this protection that allowed us to carefully ease restrictions over the past few months. However, we must do so in a way that is mindful of the benefits that both doses of the vaccine can bring.

On 19 July, the Prime Minister announced that

“by the end of September—when all over 18s will have had the chance to be double jabbed—we are planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. Proof of a negative test will no longer be sufficient.”

We will be confirming more details in due course.[Official Report, 9 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 4MC.]

This approach is designed to reduce transmission and serious illness. It is in line with the approach we have taken on international travel, where different rules apply depending on whether someone has had both jabs.

I would like to end by urging people to come forward to get the jab. Some 88% of people have had one jab and more than 80% of people aged 16 and over have now had the protection of both doses. It is the best way to protect yourself, your loved ones and your community, so please come forward and join them, and make our wall of protection even stronger.

[Mr Carmichael]

First, thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to ask this urgent question; as Big Brother Watch brings its campaign against vaccine passports to Westminster today, it is certainly timely.

The introduction of vaccine passports will have enormous practical implications for the literally thousands of businesses across the country that will be required to gather and to hold our data. It is on those aspects that the answers are most urgently required from the Government—this must not be “in due course”, as the Minister has just said. The deadline for the implementation of this scheme is now just three weeks away. We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that a scheme of this sort opens the door to a major change in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Never before in peacetime have a Government in this country controlled, in this way, where we can go and with whom, and what to do. If the Government have concluded that this now has to change, at the very least this House must have a chance to make its voice heard and its views known. So when will we get the vote that the Minister promised us before the recess?

The case for vaccine passports is riddled with inconsistencies. Nightclubs have been open since July and, notwithstanding recent events in Aberdeen, they have been relatively safe. If they are safe today for people to enjoy responsibly, what do the Government expect to change between now and the end of the month? On Monday the Minister told me at the Dispatch Box:

“We do know that 60% of people who have had two jabs will not become infected with the Delta variant and therefore cannot infect someone else, although 40% will and can.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 75.]

The 40% figure highlights one of the biggest dangers of the whole idea: taking people into large social gatherings where they think they will be safe from infection but in fact they are not. The Minister will know that there will always be some who cannot be vaccinated, so if entry to nightclubs or events is to be dependent on demonstrating vaccination, those people will be excluded. So can he tell the House: what assessment have the Government done with regard to their duties under equalities legislation? A study by the Night Time Industries Association found that 69% of its members view the introduction of vaccine passports as having a negative impact on business, and 70% said they were not necessary for opening their business. Why are the Government not listening to the experts in the industry? When will nightclubs and other businesses be told how will they be expected to check the vaccine status of their patrons? What legal authority will they have to do that and what will the consequences be for them if they do not do it?

On 12 July, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House:

“As we move away from regulations, there will no longer be a legal requirement for any establishment to have covid vaccine certification”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 32.]

When did that change and why?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s questions and I will attempt to address them. I will begin by saying to the House that no one in this Government, and certainly not this Prime Minister—it is not in his DNA—wants to curtail people’s freedoms or require people to show a piece of paper before they enter a nightclub. The reason we are moving forward on this is that we have looked at what has happened in other countries, where nightclubs were opening and then shutting again, and opening and then shutting again, and we want to avoid that disruption and maintain sectors that can add to people’s enjoyment of life and dance, as was the case for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We want them to be able to do that sustainably.

The reason behind the end of September date, which the right hon. Gentleman asked about, is that by then all 18-year-olds and above will have had the chance to have two doses.

The right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he quoted what I said to him at the Dispatch Box a few days ago: 60% of people who are doubled vaccinated will not be infected and therefore will not spread the infection, but 40% may do. The view of our clinical experts is that the additional relative safety of people having to be doubled vaccinated before they can enter a nightclub does begin to mitigate super-spreader events, which could cause us, in effect, to take a decision to close nightclubs, which we would not want to do.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the disruption to business; as he will know, this is a tried and tested solution that has been used extensively throughout the Government’s events research programme. It requires venues to check or scan the NHS covid pass, in the same way as nightclub bouncers check ID before entry.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the equality impact assessment. I assure him that we conducted a full equality impact assessment and consulted widely to understand the potential equality impact of covid status certification. We spoke to ethicists and representatives of disabilities, race and faith groups. The system allows both digital and non-digital proofs, to help to ensure access for all. Constituents who do not have a smartphone, for example, can confirm their vaccine status by calling 119 and getting proof via email or written letter.

As I say, this is not something we do lightly; it is something to allow us to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic status. We are coming towards the winter months, when there will be upward pressure of infections because of the return to school and winter. Large gatherings of people, especially in indoor venues such as nightclubs, could add to that. The mitigation against that, to allow us to transition the virus from pandemic to endemic status, is the booster programme that I hope we will embark upon later this month, after the final recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Covid-19 Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point that we look at every single day. In my ops meetings, we have a section dedicated to the workforce and specifically to the volunteers, so that we can make sure that they are put on notice of where and when we think we will need them. The only caveat that I would add is that we have built a very large infrastructure, but it has to flex depending on the advice from the JCVI, the MHRA and, of course, our chief medical officers.

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

It will not be lost on many people that the various lines of defence that the Minister listed in his statement did not actually include his plans for vaccine passports, presumably because they do not offer us any defence at all. Taking a leaf from the book of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), may I remind the Minister of what he said on Twitter on 12 January? He wrote:

“We have no plans to introduce vaccine passports…No one has been given or will be required to have a vaccine passport.”

When no less a person than Claire Fox said,

“Good to hear. Again. Can we hold you to this?”,

the Minister replied:

“Yes you can Claire.”

For Claire and the many others like her who want to hold the Minister to his words, may I ask when we will get the vote that he promised us?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is an important question that I want to address head-on, because it is about statements on Twitter; I understand that I am “trending” on Twitter.

I was asked about this by Tom Swarbrick, who replayed to me my February interview. I said to him that the difference between then and now was first that the Delta variant is so much more infections than the previous variants—it takes only a very few particles for someone to be infected—and secondly that we have learnt from the experience of other countries which attempted to reopen sectors such as the nightclub sector and then had to close them rapidly because of super-spreader events. We do know that 60% of people who have had two jabs will not become infected with the Delta variant and therefore cannot infect someone else, although 40% will and can. This is a relative risk that we want to avoid: what we do not want to do is open the industry and then have to shut it down again because of those super-spreader events.

I hope that I have explained myself to the House. It is important that when politicians have new evidence—new data—they are able to change their minds.

Covid-19 Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Lady makes a number of important points, especially the final one, where she reminded the House, as I did in my statement, that a number of countries have opened up and then had to reverse some of their decisions, which is why we are being very careful to ensure that this transition is successful and then that transitioning the virus from pandemic to endemic status is as successful as possible. She asked about children’s vaccination. She will know that the Scottish Health Minister, Humza Yousaf, has accepted, as the Welsh, Northern Irish and ourselves in England have done, the JCVI guidelines on vaccinating vulnerable children, children living with vulnerable adults and those approaching their 18th birthday. If the JCVI goes further, as it is reviewing more data on vaccinating all children, I assure her that we have available the supply of Pfizer and Moderna to undertake that, while we also continue to deliver on the double vaccinations of all adults by the end of September. She asked about the immunosuppressed and of course the guidelines have gone out on the precautionary measures that immunosuppressed people would take; similar to the rest of the country, they should be careful and wear masks in crowded indoor spaces—there is advice on ventilation as well. The JCVI has gone further in its interim advice for our booster campaign, where it has placed the immunosuppressed at the top of the priority list. That campaign will begin in early September—that is the operational target we are working to for beginning boosting and of course co-administering, wherever possible, the flu vaccination.

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

Given the massive opposition that there is among those who operate nightclubs and events, the decision of the Government to make the introduction of covid identity cards voluntary is probably a sensible one, but may I explore with the Minister what he means when he says, “We reserve the right to mandate their use in the future”? We might have hoped, Mr Speaker, that the right that the Government sought to reserve was the right to seek the permission of this House to make their use mandatory in the future. I hope that this was just a small piece of ministerial arrogance that led the Minister to mis-speak, but I would like his assurance that we will be given the opportunity to express a view on this before the mandatory use of covid identity cards is introduced.

Last week, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care a whole range of questions about the practical consequences of this voluntary scheme. I asked what constituted large events, who would be the judge of what they were, what was meant by encouraging businesses, and what would be the consequences for any businesses that resisted the encouragement from the Government. The Secretary of State had no answers to those questions. Will the Minister today answer the questions, if not necessarily for the benefit of the people in this House, then at least with a bit of respect to those who operate nightclubs, big events, restaurants, bars and others who have absolutely no idea what is going to be required of them?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

It is unlike the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to accuse any colleague of being arrogant, and I certainly hope that I did not come across as such. He is always courteous and polite—I have certainly found him to be so over the years. He asks several important questions. On reserving the right, the Government will of course come back to the House if the decision is to mandate the double vaccination requirement for nightclubs, crowded unstructured indoor settings, large unstructured outdoor settings and, of course, the very large events such as business, music hall, and spectator sports events. In the meantime, we encourage the use of the NHS covid pass in facilities or at events where people are likely to be in close proximity to large numbers of people from other households. We are working with the sector. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), met people from the sector yesterday, as he does regularly. The sector itself will have seen what has happened in other countries such as the Netherlands. It is in the interests of all of the sector and of businesses to reopen and reopen permanently, and not have to open and close, open and close, which is why we are working with the sector in this period and giving people a chance to get their double vaccinations by the end of September.

Covid-19 Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is a responsibility as we open up not just for the owners of the businesses, the nightclubs and the pubs to take that sensible, measured attitude, but for customers to give a thought to those who are serving them at the table or behind the bar and to be respectful of their needs.

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

Last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s review was reported to this House as having concluded that covid vaccine certification was not necessary and would not go ahead. Since then, however, there seems to have been a review of the review, because the Secretary of State said today that

“the Government will be encouraging businesses and large events to use certification in high-risk settings”.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House now what constitutes a high-risk setting in this context, and who will be the judge of what is a high-risk setting? What constitutes “large events”, and who will judge what they are? What is meant by “encouraging businesses” and what will be the consequences for any businesses that resist the encouragement from Government in this way? Finally, how will the data that is captured in this way, which belongs to us all, be held and protected?

[Sajid Javid]

The remarks that the right hon. Gentleman refers to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are absolutely correct. As we move away from regulations, there will no longer be a legal requirement for any establishment to have covid vaccine certification, but the guidelines, which we will publish today, will be very clear that we expect corporate bodies and responsible businesses to have a system. We will continue to provide the infrastructure, where we will work with them and with the respective Government Departments. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are already talking to industry leaders and working with them, and the industry welcomes the work on a basis of guidelines, rather than regulation.