Debate on the Address

Debate between David Davis and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the saving money element, and I will come back to that in a second. The truth is that this Government have poured more money into the health service than anybody ever predicted, and more money than they intended over time, but decisions within the health service—I come back to management rather than money—led to some of those decisions. The hon. Lady is dead right that it is a waste of money not to do the diagnosis. I am talking about MRI and CT scans, blood tests, and all the other things that help us get ahead of the disease.

I talked to Randox, one of the diagnostic companies, which is based in Northern Ireland, and asked about this issue. It has technology that it says will reduce a seven-day analysis of blood samples, for example, to 30 minutes. My view is that we should break clear of the ideology and look dramatically to increase the amount of scans and diagnostic procedures—when I say “dramatically”, I mean a multiple of what we currently do—and we should use the private sector to do it. I know that causes a bridling and a backing off, but the only way we can do this fast enough is to do that. That would save about £3 billion and reduce waiting lists for millions of people. Most importantly of all, it would save thousands of lives. If there were one thing I would do within healthcare, that would be it; there would be other things, but that would be that.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense in relation to cancer diagnosis and better treatment. One way of doing that is through research and development. For example, there have been advances in prostate cancer at Queen’s University, with that centre of excellence in Belfast, and news today of pills that can reduce the risk of breast cancer. Those are just two examples. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that research and development is key to advancing and saving lives, and getting better results for cancer patients?

[Mr Davis]

That is exactly right, which brings me to my other health topic, and the whole question of national health service data and the use of data. It is widely accepted that we have one of the greatest information treasure troves in the world in the form of national health service data—data about all our citizens. There have been two or three attempts—certainly two in my memory—to bring that data together and manage it in one block, so that it is available for managing the treatment of patients and for research. A third attempt is happening right now, with contracts out to introduce a new data management system for the whole health service. The two previous attempts failed because the national health service executive and management do not understand the importance of privacy. Each time they tried to do it, the reaction from GPs and patients was, “We are not going to co-operate with this.” There was a vast waste of money, and the projects crashed and were over. More importantly than the money, we missed the opportunity to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman says: use that data for research to advance this country to the front of the world.

The Government are doing the same again this time, because the contract has gone out, and it looks likely that the company that will win it is Palantir. For those who do not know Palantir, it started, I think, with an investment from the CIA. Its history is largely in supporting the National Security Agency in America. Bluntly, it is the wrong company to put in charge of our precious data resource; even if it behaved perfectly, nobody would trust it. The thing that destroyed the last two attempts will destroy this one: people will not sign up and join up. The health service has got to get its act together on this. If it does, and privacy is protected, we can do things like having a complete nationwide DNA database. If privacy is not protected, that will not happen. There is an opportunity there, and the Government should grasp it, not drop it.

Technology also has a large possible application to education. I was lucky that when I was a teenager, social mobility in Britain was probably as great as it ever has been, for a variety of reasons, ranging from grammar schools, which I know are controversial, through to the fact that post war, there was huge growth in the middle classes, which expanded opportunities. Those combinations together created a massive social mobility advantage for people like me. I was very lucky in that respect. Today, while I think we are about No. 10 or 11 in the PISA—the programme for international student assessment—tables, we are No. 21 in the social mobility tables, and we should not be that far down.

We need to do something about that issue. One reason it happens is that 35% of children by the age of 11—children going through their primary education—are unable to cope with their maths and English sufficiently to make progress in other subjects. In essence, they are failed by the age of 11. For free school meal kids—I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) —it is 50%. Half of children on free school meals have been failed by the state by the time they are 11, and there are all sorts of reasons why. Even with vast amounts of effort, with committed teachers, headteachers and so on putting all their effort in, it still comes apart.

One thing we can do about it—and the Department has begun to talk about it—is to start to use AI in the classroom, so that children can have tailored teaching. A kid who is falling behind gets diagnostic responses from AI, which then generates appropriate teaching patterns to pull them back up. We already have such technology. In fact, a British firm called Century Tech does exactly that. I saw it in action in Springhead Primary School in my constituency, where there was an intervention class for children who were falling behind, and they were pulled back up using this technology. If we applied such technology right across the board, it would raise the average performance in our schools by one grade per subject. That is an enormous change. That is my judgment, not anybody else’s. If we did that, our competitive advantage and our social mobility advantage would be enormous.

We have to think very hard. The Department for Education has to be a lot more imaginative than it has been so far in this area, and it has to look hard at improving the options for all those children we currently let down. That is not because the Government intend it, or because this Government or previous ones have fallen down on it; this statistic has been going on for a long time.

The last thing I want to talk about is not technology, but bricks and mortar. I have some sympathy with the comments of the PAC Chairman, in that it is as plain as a pikestaff that we have a supply problem, however we analyse it and whoever we blame for it. Our population has grown by about 10%— 6 million or 7 million—over a couple of decades, for all sorts of reasons; we can get into controversy on that, but the truth is that housing has not grown to match. One of the problems—I guess the primary problem—is the planning system. This is not the first time the country has faced this problem. We faced it after both the world wars, when “Homes fit for heroes” and so on were the slogans of the day. How did we deal with it? We had a movement to create well-designed and well-created garden towns and cities in the right places, not by trying to tack on 100 houses to this village, 100 houses to that village and 100 houses over there, in each case overwhelming the schooling, transport arrangements or whatever. We need to look hard at cutting this Gordian knot, and it seems to me that the only way we will do that is by creating well-designed, well-financed garden towns and villages, not by going through the mechanism we have been pursuing so far.

Health, education and housing: if we add those to what we have now, we have a winning King’s Speech.

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Debate between David Davis and Jim Shannon

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

First, the lawyers clearly do not understand parliamentary privilege. Secondly, what they are doing—I will come back to this in a second—is trying to repress free speech and transparency in this country. This is a clear case of an ultra-wealthy individual using the British legal system to try to scare his critics into silence, and what the hon. Gentleman refers to is their trying to extend that to his actions—proper actions—in this House. The work of those who have been targeted is all the more important considering that Nazarbayev has himself had a law passed in Kazakhstan preventing him from being prosecuted there. What he is doing with this lawfare is trying to extend that protection to this country, which, frankly, is an outrage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. Does he not agree that we can never be in a position where the fear of the personal costs of litigation prevents truth from being revealed by journalists, who are putting their homes and their livelihoods on the line to highlight individuals who will in retaliation sue them until they have not a penny to spare, and that rather than simply saying that this is awful, as we all are, what we really need is the Government to present and bring to this House legislation to prevent it?

[Mr Davis]

I will come back to that very point in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman implies, defending oneself against a libel claim, especially by an oligarch or other wealthy person, is often cripplingly expensive. In fact, it is typically cripplingly expensive. The risk is not losing the case, which is improbable in most of these cases. The penalty for exponents of free speech is the sheer cost of a vexatious process, which is what Nazarbayev wants.

Use of Patient Data

Debate between David Davis and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

In winding up the last debate, the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to volunteering a mucker for the guardroom. I hope that my entire speech does not sound like that to the Secretary of State; it is not intended to.

Every couple of years, Whitehall, like an overexcited teenager expecting a new mobile phone, becomes fixated with data. Most recently, it has been about the power of big data mining, and I am sure that that is not just because of the influence of Mr Dominic Cummings. The Department of Health and Social Care wants to open our GP medical records—55 million datasets or thereabouts—to pharmaceutical companies, universities and researchers.

Managed properly, that data could transform, innovate and help to overcome the great challenges of our time, such as cancer, dementia and diabetes. Those are proper and worthwhile ambitions in the national interest, and I have little doubt that that was the Government’s aim, but that data is incredibly personal, full of facts that might harm or embarrass the patient if they were leaked or misused. Psychiatric conditions, history of drug or alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy terminations—the list is extensive. Revealing that data may not be embarrassing for everyone, but it could be life-destroying for someone.

Unfortunately, in keeping with the Department’s long history of IT failures, the roll-out of the programme has been something of a shambles. The Government have failed to explain exactly how they will use the data, have failed to say who will use it and—most importantly—have failed to say how they will safeguard this treasure trove of information. They describe the data as “pseudonymised” because it is impossible to fully anonymise medical records, a fact that is well understood by experts in the field.

Even pseudonymised, anyone can be identified if someone tries hard enough. Take Tony Blair, who was widely known to have developed a heart condition, supraventricular tachycardia, in October 2003. He was first admitted to Stoke Mandeville and then rushed to Hammersmith. One year later, in September 2004, he visited Hammersmith again for a corrective operation. Even the name of the cardiologist is in the public record. A competent researcher would make very short work of finding such individual records in a mass database. That cannot be for the public good. Moreover, the Government seem to intend to keep hold of the keys to unlock the entire system and identify an individual if the state feels the need to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; I have been inundated with the same concerns from many of my constituents. Does he agree that a system that allows a diversion from the court-appointed warrant to collect information is a dangerous precedent in terms of judicial due process? We must ensure that anyone who opts out is completely opted out, as is promised.

Vitamin D: Covid-19

Debate between David Davis and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May I start by giving my thanks to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who cannot be with us today, but who is a fantastic ally of mine in this campaign to help protect our public?

Today, the nation is facing the second peak in the worst health crisis in living memory. To date, nearly 85,000 people have died. In November, the death rate was 175 fatalities per million, in December that figure was 222, and it looks as though January will be more than 324. To deal with this catastrophe, the Government are reluctantly instituting tough lockdowns and considering even tougher ones. Whether these measures work is disputed by some, but there is no doubt that they are incredibly costly—in economic damage, in individual freedom, in mental health, and even in lives lost to other causes.

As the death rate per million climbs month by month, from 175 in November to 324 now, the strategy certainly is not working as well as we would hope. Compare that with the province of Andalusia, a Spanish province of more than 8 million people. It started in November with a situation worse than ours—189 deaths per million as against 175—but which cut its death rate by at least two thirds while ours was doubling. That reduction, from between 50 and 70 deaths a day in November to between five and 15 deaths a day currently, started immediately after it initiated a programme of issuing calcifediol, the fast-acting high potency form of vitamin D, to at risk groups including care home residents.

The first thing that I will ask the Minister to do—not today obviously, but afterwards—is to look closely at that policy experiment and see whether vitamin D was the key to what is a spectacular success in cutting death rates by anybody’s measure. I believe that the Government in Madrid are reviewing it. So should we.

For decades, researchers and medical professionals have been warning that there is a pandemic in vitamin D deficiency, with more than 1 billion people worldwide being vitamin D deficient. The warning bells for this ignored pandemic had been ringing long before the World Health Organisation declared the outbreak of covid-19 as an official pandemic on 11 March last year. Those warnings should have been especially loud in the UK, as our vitamin deficiency levels have been described in a recent research study as “alarmingly high.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given that children have been precluded, for very obvious reasons, from taking the vaccine, we need to be proactive in building up their immune system? Will he join me in asking the Minister and the Health and Social Care Department to work with the Education Department to provide free vitamin D to every school-age child? I have asked the Minister in Northern Ireland to do the very same.

[Mr Davis]

It is an excellent idea and I do join him in that request.

On the question of medical education, it has long been understood that vitamin D plays a critical role in calcium uptake and the prevention of diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis. That was what was thought to be its main effect. Since1983, there has been a large amount of research demonstrating its critical involvement in the body’s immune system. Many of the mechanisms involved are now very well understood. By 2017, it had been clearly shown in a number of randomised clinical trials that vitamin D deficiency was a very significant issue in acute respiratory disorders such as flu, colds, pneumonia—the lot—and correcting the deficiency with supplementation could reduce the severity of symptoms by as much as 70%. This and other research showed that vitamin D had a critical role in the activation of both the innate and the adaptive immune systems and in modulating some of their responses, most notably the now infamous cytokine storms. Deficiency in vitamin D led to compromised immune systems and, as a result, susceptibility to a number of diseases, most particularly respiratory diseases but of course also covid-19. Despite this evidence to suggest that vitamin D has wider health benefits than just bone health, and despite our particularly exposed situation in the UK, our public health bodies have done little to correct this problem.

At the beginning of the covid-19 crisis, several well-respected research teams noticed a high correspondence between low vitamin D levels—deficiency—in the blood and severity of covid-19 symptoms in patients. Early evidence suggested a strong link between the two, with studies showing that 40% of patients who suffered severe covid-19 outcomes were vitamin D deficient compared with 4% of those with sufficient levels of vitamin D. Moreover, mortality rates of vitamin D deficient patients were dramatically higher than for patients who had sufficient levels of vitamin D. These were correlational studies, so they were not proof of causality, but they were massively indicative given the prior evidence of the importance of vitamin D to the immune system. So this was startling evidence.

Therefore, in early May last year, I wrote to the Health Secretary calling on the Government to urgently review the available evidence to assess the role that vitamin D could play in helping us to combat this dreaded virus. The Health Secretary, quite reasonably, handed this work to his health advisers and ordered them to undertake a rapid review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence attempted to analyse the statistical data and came back unconvinced. The problem is that correlation is not a proof of cause and effect, and a correlation, albeit a strong one, was all that we had at that point. In effect, NICE said that more data was necessary. One would think that at this point it would have initiated a large, well-designed random control trial to pin down the question: is vitamin D a causal factor in bad covid outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality? After all, it is an incredibly serious disease and this is a very cheap and safe treatment. Not only did it not do this, but two applications for funding to carry out random control trials were turned down. Since then, more general global evidence in many other countries has grown in strength, which makes the inaction all the more questionable. Several studies have been published showing how low vitamin D levels lead to poorer outcomes for covid-19 victims.

In September 2020, the results of the world’s first randomised control trial—the gold standard of medical research—on vitamin D and covid-19 were published. The trial, conducted in the south of Spain at a hospital in Córdoba, involved 76 patients suffering from covid-19 sufficiently badly to have been hospitalised. Fifty of the patients were given vitamin D and the remaining 26 were not. Half of those not given vitamin D became so ill that they needed to be put in intensive care. By comparison, only one person of the 50 given vitamin D required ICU admission—just one. To put it another way, the use of vitamin D seemed to reduce a patient’s risk of needing intensive care twenty-fivefold.

Other studies have shown, at a statistically significant level, large reductions in mortality too. There was an experimental study conducted at a nursing home in France with 66 participants. The outcome of that study was that taking regular vitamin D supplements was associated with less severe covid and a better survival rate. Evidence from the United Memorial Medical Center and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, both in the US, showed that they could get a more than 75% absolute risk-of-death reduction and reduction in mortality when treating patients with a cocktail of treatments including vitamin D. Researchers at Eastern Virginia Medical School who designed the protocol estimate that if their approach, including vitamin D-to-patient management, had been widely implemented at the start of the pandemic, it could have saved many, many thousands of lives.

The results of these studies are stark and clear-cut, and what was originally dismissed in some quarters is now backed by leading medics around the globe. Richard Carmona, the 17th surgeon-general of the United States, has said:

“The response to the pandemic…should include an effort to aggressively eliminate what is becoming apparent as a morbidity and mortality risk factor in COVID-19—vitamin D deficiency.”

Dr Carmona pointed out that the classical criteria for dealing with correlation evidence was, ironically, drawn up in this country by the great British physicians Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll in their study of smoking and lung cancer. They deduced that it was possible to use correlational data to show causality if certain other conditions could be shown: consistency of evidence, specificity of evidence, dose responsiveness and what they called temporality, which basically means that what happens first is the cause and what happens second is the effect—it is fairly obvious when you put it in English.

The simple fact is that we can show that all the Bradford Hill criteria are met for vitamin D and covid-19 if we look at the many separate individually small but collectively persuasive studies. Every single one of the criteria can be seen to be met. That is presumably why Dr Anthony Fauci, famously the head of the US Coronavirus Task Force—a difficult job at the time—has said:

“There is good evidence that if you have a low vitamin D level… you have more of a propensity to get infected”.

These are serious voices that are now backed up by serious evidence.

To give the Government proper credit, they have instigated the provision of a supplement free of charge to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes. However, if supplementation is to have any material effect, the dosage has to be sufficient to correct the existing deficiency. Sadly, with the Government’s programme for the clinically extremely vulnerable, the supplementation falls far short of this. The Government are providing supplements of 400 international units, or IU. That is in line with what the national health service currently recommends to tackle issues surrounding bone health. By contrast, the American health authorities recommend 600 IU to 800 IU depending on age. The latest research from the Royal College of Physicians recommends that health authorities should urgently recommend a higher supplementation of 800 IU to 1,000 IU a day, which would more than double the current daily recommended dose of vitamin D.

However, even that dose—based on bone health—is not high enough to provide the additional benefits and protect against respiratory disorders such as covid-19 for those with existing deficiencies; it must be much, much higher. We are not aiming to protect elderly people in care homes from rickets. We are aiming to protect them from a lethal disease, which is a very different issue.

The vitamin is safe in quite high doses. In the summer months, a person could sunbathe for 30 minutes and get the equivalent of 20,000 IU—much more than would be taken in a daily dose. All the modern toxicological evidence indicates that if there are any deleterious effects at all, they do not happen until a much higher dose than 20,000 IU. Even the NHS, which is very cautious on this, accepts that a dosage of 4,000 IU a day is perfectly safe; it says so on its website. What is needed to provide adequate protection against covid-19 is a significantly higher dose of up to 4,000 IU per day, particularly for those vulnerable groups that tend to be deficient in the vitamin—namely, the elderly, ethnic minorities and those suffering from a number of medical conditions.

Providing the supplement to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes is a small step in the right direction. However, it is a drop in the ocean compared with the action the Government should be taking overall. There needs to be a wider scheme providing supplements to all at-risk populations, including the elderly, the obese, minority ethnic groups, diabetics and people with high blood pressure. That would be a tiny cost compared with other health initiatives. A year’s supply of a daily dose is likely to cost about £15 a person, so allocating it to the identified risk groups would amount to £45 million. Allocating it to those groups plus every ethnic minority citizen would cost about £200 million, and to every clinically obese person and at-risk people in other categories would cost a little more. However, those figures could be halved if the risk is more severe during the winter months and we just gave the dose then. The benefits would be enormous. That cost is a mere rounding error when we measure it against the cost of not defeating the pandemic or the cost of a lockdown.

It is by no means a coincidence that the United Kingdom has one of the worst mortality rates in the world. After all, we have one of the worst rates of vitamin D deficiency in the world—about 40% of the population—and with that, very high levels of people with compromised immune systems. However, Public Health England continues to refuse to acknowledge the growing evidence linking vitamin D deficiency and poorer covid-19 outcomes, and for this, we are now paying the price.



Vitamin D could be one of the tools that helps turn the tide in the fight against this terrible virus. Vaccines, of course, are now being rolled out, but it will still take some time to reach levels sufficient that lockdowns are no longer needed. The Government are doing a great job on vaccines, but there are limits to what they can do, and unlike the general effect of vitamin D sufficiency on the immune system, vaccines are very specific. If a person has a specific mutation, the vaccine can be rendered obsolete; that is not true of vitamin D. In the meantime, vitamin D supplements could be provided to all at-risk groups more quickly, and at a lower cost.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the UK has now had nearly 85,000 covid deaths. It is long past the point where we try anything with even a marginal chance of success to prevent those deaths rising even higher. Well, vitamin D has much more than a marginal chance of success: we now have good reason to believe that vitamin D supplementation will help reduce mortality from covid-19 and cut susceptibility to infection. It will save lives, improve population immunity, and help reduce the medical and economic impact as we continue the universal roll-out of vaccines.

There is now no reason not to act. After all, in the Secretary of State’s own words, supplementation has “no downsides”—he was right. The surgeon general whom I quoted earlier said that we should not let covid-19 patients die with vitamin D deficiency while we “wait for perfect evidence”. Vitamin D is cheap; it is safe; it has many other proven health benefits; and, as the Government of Andalucía have shown, it could be a dramatically effective weapon in our fight against covid. There is no more time to waste. The time to act is now, Minister.