Government PPE Contracts

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister’s robust performance. He said at the end that the Government have learned many lessons. Lesson No. 1 appears to be, “Apologise for nothing.” He knows that no one I heard was criticising the civil servants. Everyone on the Opposition side of the House knows that the civil servants were working in impossible conditions—conditions created by this Government.

I can understand why the Minister has been told to come out swinging and apologise for nothing. Let us be honest: from the moment we first learnt of the existence of the VIP lane for the politically connected, it was inevitable that it would come to this, with Members of this House discussing the eye-watering sums of public money that was earmarked for procuring vital PPE during the pandemic but instead found its way into the hands of fly-by-night chancers who had little or no knowledge or experience of PPE procurement, but who—and this is probably the most charitable thing I can say about them—became fabulously wealthy while making an absolute pig’s ear of it while trying to learn on the job.

Long before the PPE Medpro scandal broke, many of us were already trying to work out how the brains behind this “get rich quick” scheme ever believed that a plan in which the Government would fast-track their cronies, their politically connected pals and now, it would appear, their parliamentary colleagues was ever going to end well. I suspect, as I said during the urgent question on 24 November, that the shocking allegations that have been levelled against PPE Medpro in both The Guardian and The Times—allegations that lead directly to a Member of the other House—may well be the tip of a very large iceberg.

I suspect the reason the Government have been so reluctant to release the papers containing the advice, the correspondence and all the communication between Ministers and special advisers relating to the awarding of that contract is that they do not want to create a precedent that would require them to open the Pandora’s box that is the VIP lane for PPE procurement. However, the Minister would do well to remember that there is another precedent here. The similarities between today’s motion and the motion of 17 November last year, when the Government were instructed to release the papers in relation to the Randox/Owen Paterson scandal, are striking. They will also recall how that scandal rumbled on for two and a half months into February, before the papers were finally made available. Similarly to last year’s debate, the same very simple questions go to the heart of today’s: do this Government have something to hide? Is there something this Government do not want us to see?

The Minister must be aware that the more the Government dodge scrutiny, so public suspicion will grow about this PPE procurement programme being little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for their politically connected pals. Given what we already know, who can blame the public for thinking that? Byline Times recently said that the covid contract winners with direct links to the Conservative party—donors and associates—have seen their collective financial position improve by in excess of £300 million. Was anyone really that surprised when Private Eye described how

“The DHSC’s London-controlled PPE ‘cell’ was dishing out contracts like confetti to opportunistic businessmen”?

[Dr Mullan]

What would the Scottish public think about the Scottish Government awarding PPE contracts, without competition, to more than 20 brand-new suppliers that were unknown to the Government?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I hate to say it, but my goodness you are predictable, Sir. That was probably the most predictable question I could ever have imagined. I will come to that later in my speech. Compared with what went on in this place, the audit of the Scottish Government’s treatment of the procurement process is squeaky clean. I so look forward to having that conversation in about six minutes.

Many of those opportunists hit the jackpot in the Government’s VIP lane for PPE procurement. Prominent among them was PPE Medpro, whose bid to supply the UK Government with face masks and surgical gowns was in the high-priority lane after, we are told, some particularly enthusiastic lobbying was carried out on its behalf by someone down the corridor. Indeed, the peer in question was so enthusiastic about the abilities of PPE Medpro to deliver that she made her passionate pitch to Ministers before the company was even incorporated. Through remarkable powers of persuasion, she persuaded Ministers to propel that embryonic company—one with no experience in delivering medical or protective equipment, and one with which, she told them, she had no personal involvement and from which she did not stand to gain financially—straight into the VIP lane.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is in danger of straying. I have let it go so far, but I remind him, as I remind the House, of what the Deputy Speaker said at the beginning of the debate. The normal rule—that reflections must not be cast upon Members of either House of Parliament, except on a substantive motion, which this is not—remains in force. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be careful in what he says.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to stay on the right side of that line, and I am sure that you will instruct me should I stray again.

On 25 June 2020, just 44 days after PPE Medpro had been legally incorporated, the firm was handed its first UK Government contract, worth almost £81 million, for the supply of face masks. Very shortly thereafter, it was awarded a second contract, worth in excess of £120 million, to provide 25 million surgical gowns. Earlier this year, The Guardian reported that it had seen the contract that was signed between PPE Medpro and the gown manufacturer in China. The price that PPE Medpro paid for the gowns was just £46 million, and even adding a bit for shipping, logistics and storage leaves, by any reasonable calculation, a whopping profit of around £70 million of public money from a contract worth £120 million.

To add insult to injury, when the cargo of gowns finally arrived, a quick technical inspection from the national health service deemed them not fit for purpose and they were never used. I understand that the situation is so serious that the company is currently under investigation by the National Crime Agency, but inexplicably, up until a couple of hours ago, the peer involved was still operating under the Conservative party Whip. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, this stinks. We know it stinks and the public—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman intends to talk just about the process and the goods and so on, and that he will not be mentioning any peer in particular. He said “the peer involved”, so he referenced not just peers in general, but a particular peer. I am sure that he does not want to make reference to any particular peer, but will just talk about the process.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I shall from now on, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you.

This whole process stinks, and we all know it does. That is why we have to see what this Government know. They deliberately created the conditions in which such behaviour could flourish, and they have to release what they know.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I take my hon. Friend back to his comments earlier about due diligence? We all heard the Minister a few minutes ago claiming that due diligence was carried out in every single case. Is it possible for even the top civil servants in the United Kingdom to do any sort of due diligence on a company that did not exist two or three weeks before?

[Brendan O’Hara]

That is an excellent question, and perhaps it is a question that, had my hon. Friend managed to intervene on him, the Minister would have been far better placed than I to answer. I find it remarkable that due diligence can be carried out on a company that did not exist.

The Government know that the release of the PPE Medpro papers will not make this magically disappear, and they are right to fear that, in releasing those files, they are likely to blow the lid off this Pandora’s box and reveal that their VIP lane for politically connected pals was simply a green light for unfettered crony capitalism, rampant profiteering and widespread abuse of public funds.

In his answer to the question on 24 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), told this House:

“There was a global scramble for PPE…It was an extraordinary situation in which we had to act in a different way.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 441.]

It is a defence that the Minister today, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), also tried to hide behind a moment ago. It may be true that things had to be done slightly differently, but what is undeniable is that the UK Government made an active choice to act in the way that they did. It was a political choice to make this an all-in, free market jamboree. They did not need to do so. [Interruption.]

In response to the chuntering from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), the Scottish Government acted in an entirely different way. Many items of PPE for Scotland had to be sourced from overseas, but the big difference and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will stop talking and listen, I will explain. The big difference was that our Government sent staff from Scottish Enterprise over to China to source the items we needed and to ensure they were made to an acceptable standard and delivered at a cost we could afford. At the same time, the Scottish Government were increasingly working with Scottish manufacturers, so that by April 2021, 88% of our PPE was being produced in Scotland.

That Government involvement had a huge impact on the price. Unit costs show that disposable facemasks cost the NHS in Scotland 31p each, while the Department of Health and Social Care in England paid 40p. That is an increase of 29%.

[Peter Grant]

I can personally vouch for what my hon. Friend has said about the development of the manufacturing industry in Scotland, because there is an outstanding manufacturer in my constituency that did exactly that—its staff came in and worked unpaid over the weekend to reset its production lines to make what was needed, instead of the high-quality stuff it had been producing before. Does he think it is sad that I cannot name that company and sing its praises today, because I do not know whether it would thank me for connecting it, even tangentially, to the subject of this debate? Is it not sad that even outstanding Scottish firms are in danger of being tarred by the same brush that has been applied elsewhere?

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All the good that we could and should be talking about is being lost by this tarnished reputation. He could just as easily have pointed to the Scotch Whisky Association, which pivoted very quickly to turn its alcohol into millions of gallons of hand gel.

I go back to the point that the Scottish Government’s involvement was absolutely crucial in controlling the prices. As I said, disposable face masks were 29% cheaper because they were bought by the Scottish Government directly. The Scottish Government bought FFP3 face masks for £2.08 a unit. The Department of Health and Social Care bought them for £2.51—a fifth higher. Disposable gloves cost the Scottish NHS 9p each. In England, it was 33% higher at 12p. Even non-sterile gloves were bought 10% cheaper by the Scottish Government. One would have thought that a country with one twelfth the population of England would have a real job in pushing unit costs down below those of a country 12 times its size. It goes back to the fact that the approach the Scottish Government took meant they were in control of every part of the process, and they secured the deals they required.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Member is talking about the Scottish Government’s track record on procurement and value for money. Does he think that that applies across the piece? How well are they doing when it comes to ferry procurement in Scotland?

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is remarkable—we can always spot when a Tory is sinking beneath the waves when they start shouting “ferries” at us. Let us remember that this is a Government who awarded a ferry contract to a company with no boats.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) perhaps is not, that the Seaborne Freight ferries contract cost £13 million? Is it not the case that people in glass houses ought not to throw stones from Crewe?

[Brendan O’Hara]

One would have hoped that people in glass houses, having thrown the first stone, would have realised that it was not the best idea.

Let me put on record that the NHS in Scotland used emergency procurement provisions to award PPE contracts without competition during the first wave of covid-19 but, crucially, the auditors are completely satisfied with the procurement arrangements in place and said that there was

“No evidence of preferential treatment or bias”

in the awarding of contracts in Scotland. I believe that that is the significant reason why our overall costs of pandemic procurement were less than a third of the UK’s, and it perhaps explains why the Government are now paying £770,000 every single day to store PPE in China. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a series of questions today to ask how much of that PPE is still usable, how much of it meets the standards required for the UK, what quality control methods were used in securing it and the proportion of PPE that did not meet the standard required.

[Will Quince]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will give way if the Minister can tell us the exact proportion of PPE produced that did not meet the standard in the UK.

[Will Quince]

I will quickly update the House. As of October, we hold 13.1 billion items of PPE and we have disposed of 145,000 pallets of excess stock so far. The majority is stored in UK sites; about 120 million items are still stored in China. The total cost of storage is now below £400,000 a day, so significantly less than the hon. Gentleman says, and the total cost for storage in China is £35,000 a day.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I genuinely thank the Minister for that information and I look forward to reading it in Hansard so I can digest it. If I heard correctly, we are now on half a million pounds a day for storing PPE.

In conclusion, having to do things differently does not give anyone, whether they are a private individual, an elected politician or an unelected politician, a licence to rip up the rulebook and behave as if we live in an unregulated wild west of public procurement. That is why it is vital that these papers are released. The public have a right to know why, while doctors, nurses and other medical staff battled unvaccinated through the worst of the pandemic, and as the public stood and cheered them in grateful thanks, some people with connections to this Government saw only the opportunity to make themselves a quick buck. I predict that this PPE Medpro scandal is the tip of a very large iceberg—an iceberg that will eventually sink this ship of fools.

Covid-19: PPE Procurement

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

From the moment we learned about the existence of this VIP lane for the politically connected, it was almost inevitable that it would come to this. This get-rich-quick scheme to fast-track cronies, politically connected pals and colleagues was never going to end well. I suspect that today’s revelations, however shocking, are simply the tip of a very large iceberg—an iceberg that could yet sink this ship of fools.

Transparency International UK has flagged as a corruption risk 20% of the £15 billion given out by the Tories in PPE contracts at the height of the pandemic. As we have already heard, they are spending £770,000 every single day to store much of that useless equipment in China. One Tory politician who had absolutely no background in PPE procurement personally made millions from those contracts, so do the Government plan to investigate proactively how many others like that are in their ranks, or are they content to sit there and watch this dripping roast of sleaze, corruption and scandal unfold on its own?

[Neil O'Brien]

Of course we take action whenever we find underperforming contracts, and I have set out how we do that. We are working our way through that. I say simply to the hon. Gentleman that we were all desperate to get PPE for our health and social care workers and for everybody who was responding to the pandemic. Inevitably, some of those contracts were not going to perform, and we are now taking action against all those underperforming contracts. On the idea that the “politically connected”, as he says, had some sort of greater success, they were our constituents—they were getting in touch with all of us, they had to be referred on somewhere, they had to be managed and they went through the same process as every other contract.

Covid-19: Forecasting and Modelling

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Edward. My first thought is, thank goodness that health is devolved. It will surprise no one to learn that I will not be joining the libertarian pile-on against scientists led by people who, even in these circumstances in a Chamber this small, still do not use face coverings.

[Mr Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I will not. The libertarian right have had enough of a kick at the ball in this debate. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way. At least half of those who have spoken today are not wearing face coverings.

I know that it is customary at this point to thank the Member who secured the debate but, in a break from tradition, I will start by thanking the scientists––the analysts, the medical professionals, the health experts, the clinicians and everyone else who stopped what they were doing two years ago and dedicated their lives to trying to work out and predict where the global pandemic might go and the impact that it could have on us. Two years ago, when tasked with working out this brand-new virus, every step that they took was a step into the unknown. There was no textbook to chart the route of this pandemic and every decision that they took was a new decision. They knew that every piece of advice they gave could have serious consequences for the population. The pressure of doing real-time covid-19 analysis must have been enormous. I, for one, really appreciate that scientists erred on the side of caution in the midst of a global pandemic in which tens of thousands of people were dying when there were no vaccines or booster protection. To all the SAGE officials, scientists, medical staff and public health experts who have done a remarkable job in keeping us safe, I say a huge and unequivocal thank you.

We know and can accept that forecasting and modelling during a pandemic are not an exact science but based on the best available evidence and a series of scenarios, presented from the best to the worst case. As Professor Adam Kucharski of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said,

“a model is a structured way of thinking about the dynamics of an epidemic. It allows us to take the knowledge we have, make some plausible assumptions based on that knowledge, then look at the logical implications of those assumptions.”

As the much-maligned Professor Ferguson told the Science and Technology Committee,

“Models can only be as reliable as the data that is feeding into them.”

Of course such models have their limitations. They are not forecasting modelling but mathematical projections based on the data available to modellers. If the tests are not being done, or tests are not being registered as positive, for example, the data modelling and forecasting can be affected. It is important to remember, however, that while the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) was telling anyone who would listen that modelling predictions were a national scandal, Professor Chris Whitty was telling the Science and Technology Committee that

“a lot of the advice that I have given is not based on significant forward modelling. It is based on what has happened and what is observable.”

Advice on lockdown and other public health measures was given by SAGE and others on the basis of observable data, not on forecasting modelling alone. I put it to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that he was quite wrong when he told GB News that

“So much of what’s happened since with…inhuman conditions that many of us struggled with”

was

“built on some really questionable science.”

Professor Whitty said clearly that he did not base his advice on that; rather, he based it on what he could see around him.

The primary purpose of modelling is simply to offer a sense of the impact of different restrictions. A report by researchers for the journal Nature found that the first lockdown saved up to 3 million lives in Europe, including 470,000 in the UK. The success of disease modelling was in predicting how many deaths there would have been if lockdown had not happened. SAGE officials, scientists and medical staff have done a remarkable job to keep us all safe, and many people across these islands owe their lives to them. I believe that the work that those people have done under enormous pressure should be applauded and appreciated, not undermined by the far-right libertarian Tories we have today.

[Bob Seely]

Shame!

[Brendan O'Hara]

Oh, I am glad that you shout, “Shame!”

[Bob Seely]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I want no more shouting; we are wasting time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has twice called me a fool. Can you clarify whether that is parliamentary language?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It is much easier as Chairman not to hear a lot of what goes on here. I am sure that nobody is foolish. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Gentleman; all I know is that he is not a fool. I call Fleur Anderson.

Randox Covid Contracts

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

This debate may not be a particular pleasure for the Minister, but it is a pleasure to follow her and her valiant attempt at defending the indefensible. Her efforts might have been more credible if her colleagues had done more than abandon her to her fate. Even when the emergency Bat-Signal had gone out from the Whips Office, it seems that this paltry crew is all that could be assembled to support her. It very much looks to us as though that is an admission of guilt by Conservative Members. I was looking forward to hearing their stout defence of their Government, and I can only assume therefore that that stout defence does not actually exist.

I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the way that she introduced this motion. I put on record our full support for it, because there has to be full transparency about exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a member of this House, representatives of Randox, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers or former Government Ministers, and their special advisers and officials. That full transparency has to include all electronic communications, as well as notes and minutes of meetings between all or some of those parties in relation to the awarding of hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of contracts to Randox Laboratories.

[Clive Efford]

I tried to intervene on the Minister but she did not give way, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The issue about Lord Bethell is not just about his mobile phone. During the period between 1 April and 6 April 2020, he held several meetings with companies that went on to win millions of pounds-worth of covid contracts from the Government, and they were not even in his diary, let alone minuted.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure the Government have heard it as well. There are many, many questions to be answered, including by Lord Bethell himself.

It is essential that this is done, because a stench of corruption is engulfing this Government, who now stand accused of making certain well-placed individuals fabulously wealthy during this pandemic, not because of their particular skill or acumen in business but primarily because of their political connections to the Conservative party. We should give thanks to Owen Paterson, because it was his behaviour and the bizarre attempt by the Prime Minister, the Tory Chief Whip and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—albeit at the expense of the reputation of this House and all of us who sit in it—that has finally blown the lid off this scandal once and for all.

It was almost exactly a year ago that the National Audit Office revealed that companies with the right political connections who wanted to supply the UK with personal protective equipment had been directed to a “high priority” channel, purely on the recommendation of a Government Minister, an MP, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior Government official.

[Alexander Stafford]

Out of 78 contracts awarded to Scottish firms for PPE, 29 were new contracts for £100 million-worth of PPE going to companies that did not have any experience before. Those 29 companies in Scotland with no background in PPE got contracts worth £100 million in Scotland, so what is the difference between that and what happened in the UK? At least Randox had the experience in these things. I am a bit confused—sorry.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The difference, quite simply, is that we never fast-tracked our pals, we never operated a get- rich-quick scheme for our pals, and we did not stuff unelected second Chambers full of people who bankrolled our party.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I represent the constituency where Randox’s headquarters is, and they are a major employer. There are not that many firms or pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom that would have had the capacity to deliver the amounts of tests that needed to be done at that time.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but what has to be remembered is that nobody is above scrutiny, and if there is nothing to hide they should have nothing to fear. This is all about scrutiny and shining a light where I fear a lot of Conservative Members do not want a light to be shone.

[Alexander Stafford]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

No, I will move on.

Once in that “high priority” channel, these companies were 10 times more likely to be successful than companies that did not have links to politicians and senior Government officials, and who were therefore, by definition, “low priority”. In and of itself, the existence of this “high priority” channel is quite remarkable, but the fact that, according to the National Audit Office, the companies referred through this route were considered by the cross-Government PPE team to be somehow more credible and therefore to be treated with more urgency makes this particularly sinister. It turns out that there were no written rules as to how the “high priority” channel should operate, meaning that those companies who had given political support and had access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds were not subject to the usual rules of procurement. They could bypass the essential paperwork that would usually be a prerequisite for safeguarding against misuse of public funds and did not even have to go through the anti-corruption checks. It seems, as I said, that it was little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for the Conservatives and their pals.

[Matt Western]

Beyond being a get-rich-quick scheme, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there are longer-term implications about where the data from the testing being done by Randox goes? When I completed a Randox test the other day, I noticed that the system does not seem to fit with the NHS and there is seemingly no data sharing between the Randox tests and the NHS. Does he know more about that?

[Brendan O’Hara]

Unfortunately not; I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting it. I think it is something in the air in which we live, and it is a very important point.

What we are seeing now is crony capitalism at its worst. It stinks, and the closer we get to it, the more it reeks.

I have in the past called for a full and independent investigation into this scandal, and I repeat that call again this afternoon. I believe that the actions of the disgraced former Member for North Shropshire strengthen that case further. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, very serious questions need to be answered. If they are not answered, the reputation of this Government, who seem to be stumbling from one crisis and scandal to another, will be further damaged, but so too will the reputation of this place, the people in it and politics generally. I understand that the Government are desperate for this to go away, but it will not go away until these incredibly serious issues are addressed. I suspect that the Government know that, and they understand that despite this place being full of large carpets, there probably is not one large enough for them to sweep this under. It will not go away and it must be addressed.

We know that between November 2016 and July 2018, Owen Paterson lobbied officials on behalf of Randox, which paid him £100,000 a year to act as its adviser. We also know that in March 2020, Randox Laboratories was awarded a no-bid Government contract worth £133 million. Despite being fast-tracked and essentially handed this multi-million-pound contract, it appears that Randox was not equipped to perform the task it had been given a shedload of public money to do. As The Times reported last week, just days after being given the contract, the company informed officials that they would struggle to carry out enough covid-19 tests without Government help, resulting in the Government sending the Army in to help. In an internal memo seen by The Times, a Government official wrote that the company was

“nervous about having sufficient systems”,

and that the Army was

“on way to Glasgow to pick up”

two machines urgently needed for testing.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I will come to the hon. Member in a moment.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

He can just make a speech.

[Brendan O'Hara]

That is a very good idea. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) would like to make a speech. The memo seen by The Times also states that the company feared that it did not “have enough extraction systems” and “was hoping yourselves” —the Government—

“could help us access extraction systems from universities, hospitals anywhere…Any we can get our hands on.”

Crucially, The Times further reported that this memo was written by an official in the Department of Health and Social Care after a phone call on 9 April between Lord Bethell, the Conservative Minister responsible for awarding testing contracts at the time, and Owen Paterson, the Conservative MP who was being handsomely paid by Randox to lobby on its behalf. It appears that the company employing a Conservative MP, which was fast- tracked and awarded a no-bid contract worth £133 million, was actually ill-equipped to provide the vital service it had promised to deliver. This absolutely stinks, and unless and until every record of what was communicated between Mr Paterson, Lord Bethell, Randox, Government officials and special advisers is made public, the stench of corruption will only increase.

[Gillian Keegan]

I want to be very clear that the contract is published. The contract date is 30 March. The meeting that the hon. Member referred to was on 9 April. The contract was let and published before that meeting.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Therefore the Minister should have no fears whatever about full disclosure, because that is what the motion asks the Government to do. It is not about selective disclosure; it has to be full disclosure and everything that was said and done among the parties that we have mentioned has to be put in front of this House and open for scrutiny.

The sending in of the Army to help Randox was not the only error or controversy that year. In August 2020, the UK’s medicines regulator had to ask Randox to recall three quarters of a million unused coronavirus testing kits after concerns were raised about safety. By any standards, Randox had not exactly covered itself in glory in the first few months of the contract, so it raises the question as to how six months later it managed to secure another Government contract, this time worth £347 million. That took its total contracts to half a billion pounds in six months. It really has been a bit of a Klondike gold rush for the Northern Ireland-based company that employed a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to lobby the Government on its behalf. As I said in response to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who is no longer in his place, everything could be above board and everyone could be beyond reproach, but we deserve to know.

Ironically, Mr Paterson was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2010 by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, who just months before becoming Prime Minister said:

“I believe that secret corporate lobbying…goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. It’s an issue that…has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”

In the same speech, he said:

“If we win the election, we will take a lead on this issue by making sure that ex-ministers are not allowed to use their contacts and knowledge—gained while being paid by the public to serve the public—for their own private gain.”

He said:

“We can’t go on like this…it’s time we shone the light…on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”

As we would say in Glasgow, aye, right, so ye will. Today, David Cameron, that self-styled great reformer, thanks to the Greensill scandal is up to his neck in the same cronyism, corruption and sleaze that he promised to call out and eradicate when in opposition. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.

While many of us very much welcome that Mr Paterson is no longer a Member of this House, the mess he has left behind needs clearing up. Until it is cleared up, the widespread belief that politics in this country is corrupt and this Government are corrupt will not go away. That perception is not helped by the Prime Minister himself deciding to go to Glasgow and stand in front of a hall full of world leaders and feel the need to declare that the United Kingdom is not a corrupt country. Here is the Prime Minister’s chance to do something about it. He can make a start by allowing full transparency over exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a Member of this House, Randox Laboratories, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers past and present and their special advisers. Should he refuse to do that, his performance in Glasgow last week will be seen as one of a Prime Minister who protests too much.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy to look into that individual case and to meet my hon. Friend, or for the Minister to meet him, to see what we can do.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the proposed points-based immigration system on the provision of health and social care.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the proposed points-based immigration system on the provision of health and social care.

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

The points-based immigration system is designed so that the UK can attract the brightest and best individuals to work here. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, jobs where there is a recognised shortage of supply, such as nurses, are on the shortage occupation list, and people filling those roles will score more than enough points to come to the UK. We are also introducing the NHS visa to make it easier for doctors, nurses and health professionals from all around the world to come to work here.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The sector is understandably worried about what a points-based system will mean for their ability to recruit the workforce they need. Soon I plan to reintroduce my private Member’s Bill, which sought an independent review of the impact of Brexit on the sector, but will also now include an independent evaluation of having such a points-based system. Given the importance of an evidence-based approach to policy making, will the Minister agree to meet me and others to see how we can all work together to ensure that the long-term needs of the health and social care sector are met based on the evidence available?

[Helen Whately]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am in contact with stakeholders, as a relatively new Minister in this post, reaching out as much as I can. I am mindful of concerns about vacancy levels but absolutely committed to making sure that, across health and social care, we have the workforce we need.

The National Health Service

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). Indeed, there have been many good contributions this afternoon, and I particularly want to point out the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).

I would like to repeat the call that I made earlier in the year through the publication of my private Member’s Bill, which asked the UK Government to make provision for an independent evaluation of the effects on the health and social care sector, should the United Kingdom leave the European Union. After working with Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, I asked the Government, in the Bill, to undertake an evaluation of the sustainability of funding and the position of the workforce, as well as the

“efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sectors”.

The concern among those working in the sector about the harm Brexit could do can be measured by the fact that no fewer than 103 third sector organisations, trade unions and charities from every part of the United Kingdom have signed up publicly to support the measures in the Bill. I can assure all those who have supported the Bill up to now that it is my intention to re-present it to the House at the earliest opportunity. I will do that not just to highlight the issues facing the sector but to ensure that, in the months to come, should Brexit happen, no one in UK Government will ever be able to claim that they did not know what was happening or that they were unaware of the effect Brexit would have on the sector or the service user.

Earlier today, the Secretary of State said that his Bill had health and social care at its heart. I am therefore surprised and disappointed that something akin to what I am suggesting was not in the Queen’s Speech, but I can assure the Government that if they were minded to take my Bill on board, they would find that I and, I am sure, Members from across the House and the entire health and social care sector would work with them constructively to get it through the House.

Every one of us knows that there is already a crisis in health and social care, and I believe sincerely that Brexit will simply deepen that crisis. I am not alone, and I know that the Government know this, because the British Medical Association wrote to the then Prime Minister in February to say that

“there is no clearer immediate threat to the nation’s health than the impact of Brexit.”

The Department’s figures show that around three quarters of the medicines that we use in the UK come from, or through, the European Union. There are well-founded and genuine fears about the availability of medicines and, just as importantly, supplies of vital medical equipment, post Brexit. When we add to that the fact that our population is ageing and living with increasingly complex care needs, we find that there is a challenge of care. That challenge is to recruit and keep the workforce needed to look after those with complex medical needs. That situation will undoubtedly worsen as the UK, for reasons known only to itself, is intent on deliberately cutting itself off from that pool of labour, on which we have come to rely so heavily. The House does not need to accept my word for this. Professor Ian Cumming of Health Education England said almost two years ago:

“Our biggest risk in the short term, as a result of Brexit, may be in the non-professionally qualified workforce across health and social care”.

It is simply not enough for the Government to say, “Trust us, it will be all right on the night,” because frankly, no one believes that it will be all right on the night. The Government have to show that they have thought of absolutely everything and that they are leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that everything will be all right. I passionately believe that the Government should look favourably on my private Member’s Bill, which 103 organisations have signed up to, and accept that an independent evaluation of the impact of Brexit on the sector is an essential part of restoring and retaining public trust. They would have nothing to lose by taking this on board and accepting that this evaluation will help everyone across these islands when it comes to health and social care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Given the increased likelihood that the next Prime Minister will be determined to leave the European Union at the end of October, deal or no deal, will the Secretary of State update the House on what preparations are currently being made to protect the import of critical supplies such as insulin and radioisotopes?

[Matt Hancock]

Meeting the need for unhindered medicine supplies was an incredibly important piece of our Brexit planning, which was successfully completed ahead of 29 March. Of course we are updating those plans as we speak, but the ability to reassure people that there will be no impact on the supply of medicines is an important part of that work.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this hugely important debate. I congratulate her not only on winning this debate, but on the way in which she forensically exposed the failings of the expert working group—how it changed the terms of reference of the inquiry; its failure to report properly, if at all, on its meta-analysis findings; and the serious questions about the independence and impartiality of the group. She finished by rightly describing the issue as the biggest legal and medical cover-up of the 20th century, but that cover-up has individual victims.

I have met Wendy Brown, a constituent from the Isle of Mull, on numerous occasions. She knows that her disability was brought on by her mother’s use of Primodos when pregnant. Wendy has been a formidable campaigner for the victims of Primodos over the years, and last week she wrote to me, saying:

“My hands and both feet are deformed, which was very hard as a child due to the constant bullying. I also had damage to my neck at birth and was baptised at home as I wasn’t expected to live. The older I am getting the more...pain I am in, especially in my feet which can really wear me down, as no matter what shoes I get they are always painful. I am now getting a very painful wrist, which is due to the way I have held my hand in order to conceal it because it has unnatural motion. This is a growing concern for me because...I work in the Post Office in Tobermory and am not sure how much longer I could keep going.”

That is the day-to-day reality of people living with the effect of Primodos.

Wendy and other members of the campaign group rightly demand justice. We owe it to Wendy and all the other victims never to abandon them in their fight for justice. It is scandalous that the people whose lives have been so badly affected and who, day in and day out, have to live with the physical, social, emotional and psychological pain are being denied natural justice. They will continue to be denied natural justice as long as the United Kingdom’s medical establishment continues to deny the link between hormone pregnancy tests and serious foetal abnormalities.

If justice is to be seen to be done, surely it is time for a statutory inquiry, similar to that for the contaminated blood scandal, in which every single piece of evidence is examined forensically and transparently. If the Government are so sure of their case, they have nothing to fear from such an inquiry. At the very least, it would restore public trust in a system in which it is lacking right now.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The key is for evidence sessions to happen under oath. That is what we called for in the House, and what should happen now.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I wholeheartedly agree; they have to be under oath. Justice would also be served if the Secretary of State were to appear before the Health and Social Care Committee to answer detailed questions about the way the inquiry was conducted, and to explain and defend its findings.

I sincerely hope that the Government are not simply playing for time with this scandal, hoping that in time it will go away. Thankfully, there are people in this House, such as the hon. Member for Bolton South East, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), and many others in the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests, who will not allow that to happen.

Finally, I put on the record my thanks to the members of the APPG for their work to continue to shine a light where some vested interests would rather one not be shone, and for their tireless work in advocating strongly for justice for the victims of Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests.

Draft Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 General Committees

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I, too, express my delight at your arrival? This is the latest in the seemingly never-ending procession of statutory instruments we have had to examine because—let us be frank—the Government’s self-imposed, ideologically driven red lines led them stubbornly to refuse to take no deal off the table, despite that being the will of Parliament.

Like the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I am not surprised in the least that the earlier SI was pulled because errors were found. The speed and volume in which SIs are being put through the House makes such mistakes almost inevitable. I am genuinely pleased that the minor drafting errors were spotted and have been rectified, but what about the inevitable mistakes in the hundreds of other SIs we have discussed? Which errors have not been picked up? It will be left to others after us to pick up those mistakes, wherever they may be.

Given where we are, we acknowledge that preparations for a potential no deal have to continue. It is important that existing food improvement agents permitted for use in the UK prior to our leaving the European Union will continue to be permitted for use, and that all conditions and requirements attached to their use will be maintained. For that reason, like the official Opposition, we do not oppose the SI. However, we do have some questions.

Although it is right that European legislation will be preserved in UK law, the falling away of EU frameworks that we have come to rely on will mean that, where the EU decides to ban or strictly regulate an item, that will not automatically be the case here. That will create an uneven playing field between the EU and the UK. I fear we may be heading down a path whereby a weaker regulatory regime and standards develop in the UK. I hope the Minister can address that.

What resources have the Government made available to ensure that the new bodies will have the power to undertake their new duties adequately? Although the regulations may provide for the same powers, surely staff will have to be trained to implement those new powers. What steps have the Government taken to train them? I read in some of the background to the regulations that the Government estimate it will take less than 60 minutes for staff to read and understand the proposed regulations, and to disseminate the key information onwards. How was that estimated? Is the Minister satisfied that, if the organisations involved in the regulation of food look at the guidance for less than an hour, that will cover all bases? Given the paltry amount of time the Government claim that will take, is he satisfied that nothing will slip through the net?

I also seek clarity about exactly what will replace the EFSA. How will it operate, what teeth will it have, and how confident is the Minister that those new organisations will stand up robustly to both the industry and special interest groups? This is another piece of hasty legislation that is being pushed through. Sadly, once again, it is indicative of this Government’s utterly shambolic approach to Brexit.

[Stephen Hammond]

Let me try to address hon. Members’ questions and comments. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked what errors were identified in the SI and what has been done to rectify them. As I said in my opening remarks, they were relatively minor drafting errors, mainly due to style rather than content. For instance, there was a drafting error in regulation 16(b), where an obligation to inform the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland of the receipt of an application for a product to be included on a list was not included for smoke flavourings. That has been corrected.

There was a comment about the failure to comply with proper legislative practice, which related to whether some text should have been prepared and presented as a footnote instead. Although it was considered that we did not have to follow that practice, we have followed it. I hope the hon. Lady will be satisfied that they were relatively minor drafting errors. She was right to make the supposition that the original explanatory memorandum still applies to this, as it did to the other three regulations that were introduced in this batch.

The hon. Lady asked about the impact on industry. As I hope she took from my words, the instrument will have no impact on the food industry. There are no changes to the controls on the use of substances or to the authorisation process for new substances, except, as we have said and as I tried to explain—I hope she took the point—that the roles of the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority will be replaced by the relevant UK entities. I have also made the point that scientific data requirements in support of applications remain the same, so the package of data that must be submitted remains the same. Therefore, there should be no unnecessary additional burdens.

The consultation that took place with industry was open for six weeks between 4 September and 14 October, but, because it is so important that food safety and standards are maintained, it was left open for another week so that any latecomers could be included in the analysis. In total, 50 responses were received, of which some 82% supported the Government’s approach. I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that industry has been consulted, that it understands the impact on it—that is, that there is very little impact—and that it is satisfied.

The hon. Lady asked about aspartame and the PKU impact. No changes are being made to labelling. Therefore, PKU sufferers will continue to see labelling as they do now.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised the subject of the European Food Safety Authority. As I said at the beginning, the instrument will not change the FSA’s top priority in the UK, which is to ensure that UK food remains safe. The FSA has strengthened its risk analysis. The hon. Gentleman asked whether capacity has been strengthened, and I can tell him that capacity and resource for risk assessment and risk management have been strengthened. The FSA is also expanding its access to scientific experts who can provide the necessary scientific advice and other scientific services to meet any potential increased need for risk assessments.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On a point of clarification, are the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland expected to take over all the existing functions of the EFSA?

[Stephen Hammond]

As I pointed out, the UK will still have access to the re-evaluation programme until the end of 2020. All those re-evaluations will be undertaken through the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. The draft regulations, along with other instruments, will transfer the functions of the EFSA to those bodies—[Interruption.] Inspiration has reached me to confirm that point.

The hon. Gentleman asked how we will ensure that we have the required expertise and resource to maintain standards in the UK. As I said, we have already put in place extra capacity and access to extra scientific advice. We are also looking at expanding the role of scientific advisory committees, to help us to uphold the principles of protecting public health and maintaining consumer confidence through openness and transparency.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Leaving the EU: Health and Social Care

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of leaving the European Union on the UK’s health and social care sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate, and all hon. Members who have come along to take part in it. I put on the record my sincere thanks to Robert McGeachy of Camphill Scotland, to Craig Wilson and Gareth Jones from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and to Andrew Strong of Alliance Scotland, for all their help and support in preparing for the debate.

The debate’s origins are in my private Member’s Bill, which I tabled in November 2018. It sought from the UK Government provision for an independent evaluation of the effects on the health and social care sector of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Like many others, my Bill will almost certainly fall this Friday, without ever seeing the light of day or being debated. I was always prepared for the likelihood that the Bill would fall because of a lack of time, so that does not surprise me. What did surprise me, however, was my Bill’s impact on the organisations that deliver vital health and social care to so many vulnerable and needy people day-in, day-out right across the United Kingdom.

Currently, no fewer than 102 different third sector organisations, trade unions and charities have publicly supported the measures in the Bill. Not a single one of those organisations believes that Brexit will be good for the health of the people of these nations. Moreover, they all support the idea that an independent evaluation of the effects of Brexit on the health and social care sector should be carried out, and that it should examine the sustainability of public funding, the challenges faced by the workforce, and the efficiencies and effectiveness of the sector.

I will not test everyone’s patience by naming all 102 organisations that have lent their support, but I can assure hon. Members that they cover every part of the United Kingdom. They include the Western Isles Carers, Users and Supporters Network, which is based in Stornoway, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, Disability Wales, and the London-based Mentor UK, which does great work with young people on alcohol and drug misuse. Those organisations share my concerns, and I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to each and every one of them for contacting and supporting me.

In the light of the extremely high levels of concern among those delivering services at the sharp end, I did not want this hugely important issue simply to disappear from the radar on Friday, when my private Member’s Bill will almost certainly fall because of a lack of time. I felt that I owed something, not just to those organisations, but to the most vulnerable in our society: those with disabilities; children and young people; older people; unpaid carers; those living with long-term health conditions; and those who rely on the vital contributions made by the highly valued EU citizens who provide for our health and social care needs right across these islands. Their voices are not being heard, or their views properly considered. I felt that I owed it to those people to ensure that the very serious issues that the health and social care sector will face post Brexit are examined and discussed in this place so that, 18 months from now, no one can claim not to have known what the sector or the service users were saying.

Every one of us knows that there is already a crisis in social care across the United Kingdom, with a seemingly relentless pressure on funding. Our population is ageing and has increasingly complex care needs, and we face major challenges in the retention and recruitment of the workforce required to meet those needs. One would have thought that, in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum in June 2016, the Government would at the very least have made a top priority of safeguarding the health and care of their citizens. Guaranteeing a secure supply of the vital medicines that are manufactured in the EU, or that have to be transited through it, would have been a good starting point, particularly as the Department of Health and Social Care’s own estimate states that two thirds of the medicines that we use in the UK come from or via the European Union.

One would have thought that securing access to the essential pool of labour that we require now, and will increasingly need in future, would have been at the top of the to-do list, or thereabouts. Yet in March 2019, just 10 days from possibly crashing out chaotically, we are still discussing the dangers that the weakest and most vulnerable in our society will face as a result of Brexit, and particularly the type of Brexit that the UK Government have chosen to pursue. It is one in which their ideologically driven, self-imposed red lines will deliberately sever the essential link between the health and social care sector and the pool of labour on which it depends. Exactly two years ago, Professor Ian Cumming, the chief executive of Health Education England, said:

“Our biggest risk in the short term, as a result of Brexit, may be in the non-professionally qualified workforce across health and social care”.

Without exception, every single organisation that offered me support for this debate or prepared a briefing ahead of it highlighted the enormous damage that Brexit, and particularly the end of freedom of movement, would do to their ability to deliver care and undertake essential medical research—every single one. They include Cancer Research, CLIC Sargent, the Local Government Association, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, researchers from the University of Birmingham, Macmillan Cancer Support, the British Medical Association and Age UK, to name but a few. They have all said that the health and social care sector values and wants to retain its EU staff, and wants nothing to stop it recruiting more of those hugely valued and important staff members in future.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is timely that the hon. Gentleman is bringing this issue to the forefront once again. On healthcare, one of the things that certainly worries my constituents and me is the potential for the national health service to be open to predators post Brexit. As I am sure he knows, on one hand, the care side of the NHS is vastly underfunded, while on the other hand, people cannot afford care to look after their families, including elderly parents and others. Research and development in medicine and collaboration with Europe are also important, and two universities in Coventry that engage in a lot of that have voiced concerns to me about it. Does he agree with those concerns?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fear in the sector and among care users is palpable. A recent article in The Lancet, which backs up his points, states:

“All forms of Brexit involve negative consequences for the UK’s leadership and governance of health, in both Europe and globally”.

For me, that sums up the hon. Gentleman’s point exactly. I hope that he agrees.

We cannot get ourselves into a situation in which there is a barrier between the health and social care sector and that pool of labour. Age UK recently said that

“our care workforce is in no position to withstand the loss of good…care workers, wherever they come from.”

The King’s Fund said:

“Widespread and growing nursing shortages now risk becoming a national emergency and are symptomatic of a long-term failure in workforce planning, which has been exacerbated by the impact of Brexit and short-sighted immigration policies.”

The message from the sector to the Government is therefore clear and unambiguous: we simply cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the labour markets on which we have become so reliant and on which we will depend more and more in future. One look at the frontline of the health and social care sector and its delivery, and it is easy to see how heavily it depends on workers from outside the United Kingdom. Without access to those workers, the UK home market will be required to fill the gaps, but people are not queuing up to fill the vacancies that exist now, so do the Government believe that somehow post Brexit people will suddenly become available for work in the care sector?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about the workforce, but is it not natural that as the economies of other countries get stronger, the workers who would have come here will be lost to natural erosion as they no longer want to come to the UK? The emphasis needs to be placed on training our own young people and making it advantageous for them to join the health service.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but we have to compete for workers and to have an attractive package for people to come here to work, but if we take ourselves out of the game, we are no longer in the competition—we will have cut ourselves off. There are issues relating to retraining and getting people into the sector, but unfortunately the demographics are incredibly skewed against that happening, certainly in the short and medium term. I will come on to some of the statistics.

At the end of June 2018, NHS England had more than 100,000 unfilled posts. The NHS regulator has stated that such vacancies will become even more commonplace during the remainder of 2018-19. Both the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Social Services Council have found that 40% of social care organisations report unfilled staff vacancies. There is no professional analysis out there that does not estimate that the demand for care will only increase in future. The King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust have predicted that NHS England staff shortages could rise from 100,000 to almost a quarter of a million by 2030. That is more than one in six of service posts. At the end of last year, Care England estimated that by 2035 an additional 650,000 care jobs will be required just to keep pace with the demands of our ageing population.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the statistics, did he establish whether it was also estimated what the level of vacancies was likely to be were we to remain in the EU over that 10-year period, given that there are 100,000 vacancies now, despite the UK being a member for 40 years?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I realise that many things have been blamed on the European Union, but the demographics and the population outcome of the UK cannot be blamed on it. What one can say about the present situation, however, is that we can predict that it will not get any better in the short or medium term. I think that Skills for Care has calculated that a quarter of the health and social care workforce are aged 55 and over. They will be due to retire sometime in the next 10 years, which will mean another 320,000 vacancies that need to be filled.

Let us not kid ourselves: we are facing a looming crisis. Equally, it is a crisis of the UK Government’s making, because they chose to go down this road of a hard Brexit. They want to take us out of the single market and the customs union; they chose to end the freedom of movement that has done so much to enhance the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the UK over the past 40 years; and they did so knowing the consequences that such actions would have.

I therefore look forward to the Minister explaining exactly why the Government allowed that to happen and what their long-term plan is to fill those hundreds of thousands of vacancies facing health and social care in the coming years. If that plan includes yesterday’s launch by NHS England of the campaign to encourage GPs to come out of retirement, then heaven help us.

The primary purpose of this debate is to focus on the enormous challenges that will face our biggest asset, the people, whether they work in or rely on the sector, but as important as recruitment, retention and the level of care we provide is the issue of medicines and access to research. As I said, I have been inundated with representations from charities and third sector organisations, which are all extremely worried about the future of medical research and the ability to source vital drugs and treatment, particularly if we have a chaotic crashing out of the European Union. Who would have believed that in 2019 we would have a UK Government advising people to stockpile medicines? Those medicines might be life-saving, but we all took it for granted that they would be there if and when necessary. Now people are stockpiling, in 2019—it beggars belief.

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

The hon. Gentleman ought to be absolutely clear: we are not advising people to stockpile medicines. That is alarmist, and he should not be saying it. That is not what the Government are doing.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I will rephrase that. The Government are advising the stockpiling of medicines—perhaps not by individuals, but the Minister and the Government have advised the stockpiling of medicines.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Through my hon. Friend, I ask the Minister this: if the Government are not stockpiling, why on earth are they ordering all those extra fridges?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he gets to his feet to respond.

How in the name of the wee man did the United Kingdom ever end up in this appalling, self-inflicted mess, in which the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable do not know who will be there to look after them, while healthcare professionals are unable to provide the comfort to their patients that everything will be all right? Only last week, Professor Andrew Goddard, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said that

“the public rightly expects candour from health professionals, and we have ultimately been unable to reassure our patients that their care won’t be negatively impacted by the UK exit from the EU.”

When the BMA wrote to the Prime Minister on 27 February, it left her in no doubt as to its thoughts, stating that

“there is no clearer immediate threat to the nation’s health than the impact of Brexit.”

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason why members of the public and our constituents are so concerned is that we have no guarantee against predatory procurement in the NHS or against an interrupted supply of medicines, so how can people be reassured?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I could not have put it better myself. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Much more could be said on this topic, but I am keen for other Members to have their say. I will conclude with a number of questions, in addition to my earlier one, for the Minister to address when he gets to his feet. What assurances will he offer to each of the 102 organisations that supported my private Member’s Bill that the health and social care sector will not be adversely impacted by the UK leaving the European Union? What plans are being put in place to guarantee that the sector will be able to recruit the workforce it needs post Brexit? Will he support moves to amend the £30,000 minimum income threshold proposed for the immigration Bill, which will be so devastating for those seeking to work in the sector? Will he confirm once and for all that there will be no detrimental impact on the supply of medicines or devices if the UK proceeds to leave the European Union in a catastrophic crashing out? Finally, will he support my call for an urgent, full and independent evaluation of the effects of leaving the European Union on the UK’s health and social care sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman has much more leisure time than me, as he can still watch the BBC. I cannot remember when I last watched it, but I am pleased to join him in condemning its attitude. He makes a strong point. During the Brexit campaign, the health sector was dominated by the promise on the side of the famous bus, but equally, the remain campaign has lied through its teeth in saying many things. I have no real confidence that, if we were to have a second referendum, we would at any stage be able to have a debate free of exaggeration.

A constituent contacted me to say that he had been to a local hospital and was astonished to see that as a result of Brexit—although it has not happened yet—the ward was closing and had lost a large number of staff. I decided I would not let that go, but would find out the facts. I spoke to the matron who ran the ward in question. She said to me, “That is absolute rubbish. We have a full ward; this is a normal cycle of people’s leave and it has nothing at all to do with Brexit.” If we make Brexit arguments we need to ensure we have a rational and objective discussion, which so far we have not been able to have.

[Brendan O'Hara]

To have a rational and objective discussion, we have to rely on experts and take evidence from the people in the field. The contributors are objective: Macmillan Cancer Support, the British Medical Association, Cancer Research UK and CLIC Sargent have come to us to say there is a major problem. I presume the hon. Gentleman would not say that they are partisan players.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Had the hon. Lady joined me in walking through the Lobby to vote for the withdrawal agreement—so that Brexit would happen on 29 March and leaving without a deal would be impossible—she would know that all the arrangements currently in place would pertain. We are talking about arrangements for a no-deal situation, which I and the Government certainly hope will not happen. These arrangements are specifically designed to ensure that arrangements are in place for no deal.

In the short time I have left, I will stress the continuity of supply. It is essential that any responsible Government, even if they wish for a different outcome, should prepare for the outcome that they do not want, which in this case is no deal.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Will the Minister give way on that very quickly?

[Stephen Hammond]

Very quickly.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question I asked about the long-term plan to fill those hundreds of thousands of vacancies now and in future, and to reassure supporters of my Bill that health and social care will not be adversely affected by the UK leaving the EU. I would be hugely grateful if he did so in the next three minutes.

[Stephen Hammond]

There are so many issues that I could tackle in the next three minutes. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, the long-term plan has ambitions to ensure that there are new routes into nursing and that there are extra doctor training places. I said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford that we have commissioned Baroness Harding to start a workforce implementation plan. I assure the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that driving down the number of vacancies is a priority for the Government. However, he will recognise that several of those vacancies are not necessarily unfilled posts, because they are usually filled by staff from the temporary staff bank. We need to be clear about what we are talking about. Recruitment into our national health service and our social care system is absolutely a key priority.

My Department has overall responsibility, on behalf of the devolved Administrations, for ensuring the continuity of supply of medicines and medical products. All supply arrangements take into account the whole of the United Kingdom. We have had significant support from, have given reassurance to and are constantly working with the pharmaceutical industry, the whole of the medical supply industry, clinicians and patients, and I am delighted to say that last week we held a roundtable with the devolved Administrations, so that their concerns could be listened to and directly addressed.

Several Members commented on stockpiling. We recognise that if we leave the EU without a deal, the medical supply chain will come under a lot of pressure. Around three quarters of the medicines and more than half the clinical consumables that we use come from the EU. Since last August we have been working with the industry to ensure that, before 29 March, there is at least an additional six weeks of stock over and above the usual buffer stocks in the UK.

We have also advised companies that if they are likely to face difficulties in their supply routes, there are ways of bringing in supplies outside the normal short straits route, either by using existing services or by making use of the additional capacity that the Government have procured. We are reliant on transport and freight being re-routed, but I am confident that, if everyone—including suppliers, freight companies, the health and care system and international partners, all of whom we have worked with since last August—does what they need to do and have committed to doing, the supply of medicines and other medical products will be uninterrupted.

I had intended to deliver a rather longer speech this morning, but I thought it was important to try to answer directly the questions put to me by hon. Members. There is no doubt that many areas of the health and care system will be directly affected by EU exit. We do not have time to address those today. However, it is important that the country knows that the Government are committed to ensuring that, whether we leave with or without a deal, we have in place the contingency plans needed to meet those challenges.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The shadow Minister said that this is the most important issue of the day, and she is right, so where are her colleagues? Every constituency in the country will be badly affected by this issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members, but time has beaten us. I place on the record my particular thanks to the Minister for not reading a prepared speech and for dealing with the questions that Members asked.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).