Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Debate between Derek Thomas and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

May I start by thanking Mr Speaker for permitting me to bring this debate to the House?

Sites of special scientific interest make an important contribution to the Government’s statutory targets and international commitments to halt biodiversity decline by 2030, and to meeting the goal of the 25-year environment plan to be the

“first generation to leave that environment in a better state than we found it”.

These commitments are made easier to achieve because British farmers are passionate about protecting and enhancing our great British countryside. Farmers manage more than 70% of all land in the UK, which is why they are the most critical partner the Government have in the commitment to reverse nature decline by 2030.

However, there is an elephant in the room, which is Natural England. My experience is that Natural England fails to engage, convince and partner with our farmers and landowners. It is my view that the Government’s ambition in this area is at risk because of Natural England.

I turn my attention to West Penwith moors and downs, which was formally designated as an SSSI in July this year. It was no surprise that Penwith moors was identified as a candidate for SSSI designation. The principle of the West Penwith SSSI presented farmers with no real cause for concern. After all, it is these landowners who have cared for the environment for generations. They understood—and understand—how precious it is.

Let me set out the context. West Penwith is a manmade landscape with the oldest continuously used manmade features in the world. There is a long history of agriculture and livestock grazing, with many of the 4,000-year-old field systems still used for their original purpose. To reinforce this point, during the hearing of the Natural England board, which took place on 28 June, one of the most recent members to join the board was critical during the hearing, stating that she

“was surprised that the area had not been formally designated before now”.

It was clear that her mind was made up before the hearing, which came as a surprise to me, but, essentially, she was not wrong in her assessment. What justifies such a significant designation is the careful management of this countryside by farmers whose families have farmed over multiple generations, and it is their sons and daughters who hope to follow in their footsteps, if allowed.

Why am I asking the House to consider SSSIs? In October 2022, SSSI notification packs landed on the doormats of landowners and farmers, and, contrary to our expectation, close to 1,000 acres of clean land—pastures, paddocks and land on which crops or even animal feed could be grown—was included. It also became very clear that Natural England’s case relied on scientific evidence that was not much more than desktop studies and old survey data. The risk to the viability of these farms and small holdings by Natural England’s approach was clear for all to see. For example, the notification documents that the landowners received did not include clear evidence or reasons why their clean land had been included.

From that day forward, the way that Natural England approached the designation to many of these farming businesses came across as high-handed and paid no, or scant, regard to these businesses’ long custodianship of the land. This has caused huge resentment within the farming community and undermined future landscape recovery ambitions, which I shall come on to later.

Everyone in the House recognises that viable farms and careful land management demand an important ingredient: confidence. It was confidence that took a severe beating in the months between October 2022 and 28 June 2023—the date of the hearing to confirm, amend or reject the SSSI. Any scrap of confidence left was truly and utterly obliterated for those who attended the full day’s hearing, and I include myself in that. The Minister should be aware that, when challenges were made by objectors on the day, little responsibility or ownership was accepted. Instead the chair, the legal team and senior officials sought to blame Government policy, and we were repeatedly told that it was the Government’s commitment to halting biodiversity decline that drove the actions of Natural England.

The Minister might find it helpful if I highlight some of our significant concerns following the hearing on 28 June. First, when pressed, specialists admitted that they did not have robust data or evidence to include the 700-plus acres of good pasture farm land—by that time, more than 200 acres had been successfully challenged by landowners and removed from the SSSI area. The only reason that Natural England gave, when pressed, for including that good pasture land was, “There is potential for pollution.”

Preventing excess nitrate in surface water from reaching valley mires was Natural England’s primary justification for the SSSI. It believes that that would lead to excess nutrient in the mires, to the detriment of the special fauna and flora present. Such environmental damage was highlighted as likely by Farmscoper, a desktop tool that offers generic assessment. Critically, however, the first thing that the Farmscoper tool offers is a disclaimer saying that the general results it generates should not be applied directly on any specific farm. Instead, it says that the results should be checked by on-site testing. On-site testing had not happened before designation and, as far as I am aware, Natural England has no plan to carry it out.

Other concerning aspects of the day included Natural England’s failure to assess the land properly; its failure to understand the hydrological implications of past mining, right across the Penwith moors area; its failure to communicate properly, to the extent that some landowners never received the notification and some still do not know what part of their land is under restriction; and its failure to follow Natural England’s own guidelines. The quango admitted that its own data was several years old and that officers had frequently diverged from SSSI selection guidelines. Bird surveys were undertaken for a year, not for the three to five years specified by Natural England’s own rulebook. Invertebrate surveys relied on a single year, rather than three years as the guidance specifies.

Why does this matter? Because now, following confirmation of the SSSI, farmers are subject to the same Natural England staff dictating how they operate their farms. That includes its telling farmers to stop milking cows and its imposing an arbitrary reduction in livestock, making some farming businesses unsustainable and impacting the rural economy and food security, while delivering no meaningful benefit to the environment. Farmers are already selling their businesses. It also includes refusing consent for the maintenance of utilities such as telegraph poles, and giving only time-limited consent for water abstraction and repair to the infrastructure of boreholes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about utilities ties in with an issue in my constituency. I understand very well what he says about Natural England’s oversight of farmers and the impact on their businesses. There are also concerns about flexibility. I live in an area of outstanding natural beauty, with a site of special scientific interest. It is important that we retain that, but it is also important that there be flexibility within the Department. However, there is not that flexibility, and it is quite clearly not there in Natural England either.

Back home in Northern Ireland, in my constituency of Strangford, we are after two things: better safety at the SSSI at Kircubbin, and better safety at Portaferry Road. Both those things have been objected to by the Department. When it comes to sites of special scientific interest, it does not matter what is safe or what is right; all that matters is the Department’s point of view. That is exactly what I think the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Derek Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I welcome. To be clear, the West Penwith moors SSSI was and is welcome; the problem is how Natural England has gone about it by including good farming land that risks the viability of farms without robust evidence of any real harm to the rough land, as we would describe the moorland. My experience from engaging with the Department is that it fully understands the concerns that I have raised; it is Natural England that seems to have ridden roughshod across farmers’ interests and their understanding of how to care for their natural environment. Everything has been determined by how Natural England officers would like it to be done.

Returning to water, the water supply on the farms is not just for livestock; as is often the case in rural areas such as mine where we are off grid, it is for the farmers’ homes and all the properties around them. At the moment, consent is being given for those farms to abstract water from the boreholes for a very limited time only.

I will give an example of the impact on a farm not far from where I live. I happen to live right on the edge of the moors, and it is the most beautiful part of the world; I would welcome a visit from the Minister, both to see West Penwith moors and to visit the farms and businesses impacted by the designation. This farm has two fields that have a mixture of acid pasture, ferns and heather, and grassland, which Natural England included in the SSSI with the rest of the farmland, which is already in Natural England’s higher level stewardship scheme.

The farmers objected to the inclusion of the two fields, as they were not part of the HLS scheme and were used as sacrifice ground for winter feeding of yearling Red Ruby Devon heifers that were out-wintered. Red Ruby Devons cope with the winters outside, as do many of the cattle we rear in west Cornwall, but they need supplementary food, such as bales of haylage in a trailer that is moved around every so often to avoid poaching. Visits by Natural England staff seemed to offer comfort, because of the 25 years of history that the farm has with the environmental sensitive area scheme and then the higher level stewardship scheme. Natural England acknowledged that the farm had been doing everything that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England wanted, but as there was not a boundary between the rough land and the main grass pasture, all of it was in the SSSI and hence under restriction.

Natural England would only consider allowing the current winter grazing practice to continue if a fence, priced at £2,100, was erected to divide the two areas. What was the outcome? The farm decided not to squander hard-earned cash on a pointless fence, but to reduce stocking levels, as it will not be able to keep as many cattle out this winter. That leads to reduced cattle grazing on the moorland, making way for brambles and rhododendrons to invade. We have seen that already close to where I live. If hon. Members know anything about brambles and rhododendrons, they will know that, when an area is not grazed, it is extremely difficult to get rid of those invasive species—rhododendrons in particular. It will cost the state and the council enormous sums of money to clear them away.

Given the impact on this farm and many more besides, you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I stress that the science has to be right, and not just enough to get it through to become a SSSI. It needs to be right and done over a period of time to prove its efficacy. Natural England needs scientific rigour in its actions, but it has proved incapable of functioning to that level of detail. As I have said, its officers have not even tested the water, but have simply relied on a desktop survey.

I was disappointed after the hearing, as it was evident that the entire board, including the chair, demonstrated a failure to understand the landscape from both a historical and ecological perspective. More importantly, they failed to recognise that the existing designations and safeguards, which are already there to protect the very countryside I am talking about, offered an opportunity to pause the whole process in order to properly gather the evidence and scientific data that such a significant designation demands. That option was theirs for the taking, but they refused to take it.

I personally raised two queries affecting my constituents at the hearing and was promised a written response within weeks. Instead, the only time Natural England staff have made contact with me—that is, without my initiating the conversation—since the hearing was late last week, when they suggested that I might wish for an update. I can only conclude that that was triggered by my securing this debate. However, I know what is going on, because I have kept in close contact with Farm Cornwall, the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the farmers themselves. It is those hard-pressed independent organisations and farmers who have been communicating, not the publicly-funded quango whose job it is to do so.

The two issues which must be clarified are as follows. First, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 under which the designation took place, if Natural England amends or withdraws a consent, and in doing so causes a loss, it should compensate. I was told by several farmers that Natural England advised that consent would be given if the applicant amended the application to a five-year consent period. I am advised that should a time-limited consent expire and a new more restrictive consent be issued, that provision does not kick in, so any loss is not subject to compensation. It appears that Natural England may be deliberately using the five-year time limit to obviate its obligation to compensate for loss if further restrictions are deemed necessary. I pressed the chair of the board to clarify that that is not the case, and I received assurances that I would receive clarification.

The second issue is the removal of clean land—the pasture land that I referred to earlier—from the designation. Some landowners expended vast amounts of money and were successful in demonstrating that their clean land should not have been included—hundreds of acres were removed prior to the public hearing. That was not the case for landowners who did not have the wherewithal or funds to pursue such measures. I cannot see how any of us can be confident that the clean land that remains in the designation deserves to remain so. The conclusion has to be that landowners who did not challenge in that way, who find their clean land within the SSSI, and have the restrictions and requirements to secure consent that go with it, may have received a different outcome if they had, like others, spent tens of thousands of pounds.

I raised both concerns at the hearing. I was promised clarification, but, as far as I am aware, neither the landowners nor I have received it. I am not alone in believing that Natural England is unfit for purpose: it has no relationship with the land and no farmers on the board—all board members are political appointees—it makes no reference to socio economic reasoning, and it has no plan for the land or for positive management of the SSSI. What is more concerning to me and, I suspect, to the Minister, is the poor state of the nation’s SSSIs. Natural England’s own recent reporting states that only 37.1% of SSSIs are in a favourable condition.

However, we are where we are, and I want to move forward to mend some of these challenges. Prior to the confirmation of the SSSI, Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Farm Cornwall and I began to engage with landowners to rally support for a landscape recovery scheme. We met the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), to propose it, and a small number of meetings have taken place to bring farmers on board. That is still moving forward, and I understand that an application will be lodged on 21 September, later this week. However, trust in Natural England has been so undermined that some farmers understandably refuse to engage.

For years, we have managed Penwith moors through a nature partnership using funds such as countryside stewardship schemes. The only way that I can see to bring those landowners back on board is for DEFRA to agree that responsibility for managing a West Penwith moors and downs landscape recovery scheme is taken away from Natural England and placed with a local partnership, such as the Penwith Landscape Partnership, which was formed in 2014 to support the understanding, conservation and enhancement of the Penwith landscape as a sustainable living, working landscape—the very landscape that we are discussing today.

I believe that the Government must go further: the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be reviewed to see whether it is fit for purpose now that we have the Environment Act 2021 and many other tools to ensure nature recovery. The Act gives powers to an unaccountable body that, if recent examples across England are anything to go by, threatens our ability to reverse nature decline. Natural England is driving away the very people who understand and care about the issue. Nature recovery is not a desktop exercise for quangos to pursue but the lived experience of thousands of people who depend on the natural environment for their livelihood and to feed the nation. Nor can it be that, in its consideration of SSSI notification, Natural England has regard only to the environment; surely, it must recognise the social, cultural and economic impacts in its consideration. That is clearly a weak aspect of the law that the Minister must consider in her response.

DEFRA should also review how Natural England goes about executing its responsibilities. West Cornwall is not the only part of England where serious tensions exist between Natural England and organisations and individuals who care passionately about their environment and landscape. Natural England needs to be told in no uncertain terms that any restriction placed on those who own and farm land in the West Penwith moor and downs SSSI must be backed by robust and reliable evidence, such as recent datasets and a transparent and accurate water and soil testing regime. Farmers and landowners must be informed of their rights and their opportunities to support or object to the designation; be given adequate time to review the evidence relating to their land; and be given clear guidance on applying for operations requiring Natural England’s consent.

However, the Country Land and Business Association argues—rightly, in my view—for a bespoke SSSI transition fund to provide funding for the costs incurred when a new designation is introduced or Natural England prescribes management changes. Land managers in SSSIs face potentially dramatic changes to their enterprise, with no compensatory funding available for their loss of assets, or for the need to retain staff or invest in new equipment. Also, given the grave concern expressed by so many respected bodies and the columns that have been written on the subject, I implore the Minister to set up an independent review in relation to Natural England and the West Penwith moors and downs SSSI, as has been established for Dartmoor.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not wish to keep you longer than necessary—I express my sincere thanks to the landowners and farmers who, despite being under extraordinary pressure and stress during the process of designating the SSSI, engaged constructively and in good faith, hoping that common sense with a little respect for the way they had cared for, protected and enhanced the area for years would prevail. I also thank the NFU, Farm Cornwall, the Country Land and Business Association, Cornwall Wildlife Trust and the Campaign for Rural England’s Cornwall branch for the time, effort and expertise they have expended to try to bring Natural England to a place where much of the damage that has been done could have been avoided. I look forward to hearing the Minister address as many of the points I have raised as possible, and invite her to come to my constituency to see this wonderful part of the country for herself.

NHS Dentistry in England

Debate between Derek Thomas and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right to say that there are commissioned units of dental activity that are not being delivered. There are all sorts of reasons for that, which I hope to cover in my speech. Ultimately, however, we need to look at the contract itself and consider whether it actually works for patients. The contract was introduced by the Labour party in 2006. We know that it does not work today and is in urgent need of reform, which I will come on to in my remarks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Derek Thomas]

I will make a little progress first and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

We have heard about other examples and concerns elsewhere, but in Cornwall we do not have the capacity to assess the patients in the backlog, let alone to treat them. This is not just about dental health. Dental examinations pick up the early warning signs of mouth cancer, or poor periodontal health associated with diabetes, for example. I should declare an interest, Mr Stringer, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes. It is estimated that 60,000 people with type 2 diabetes had their diagnosis missed or delayed because of the cancellation of dental examinations.

I will now give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon]

I know that this debate is about NHS dentistry in England, but may I say—regionally—that the problems are just as real in Northern Ireland as they are anywhere else? My concern is that there is no access to NHS dentistry any more in Northern Ireland; either people pay for dentistry, for example through a subscription, or they do not get it.

Does the hon. Member agree that dental care should not be restricted to those who have the money to pay? The impact of this situation will clearly fall on those who see dentistry as being the bottom of the list when it comes to paying? People in the poverty trap who feel the pressures of rising prices will be even more detrimentally affected than ever. Does he feel that now is the time for Government all across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—although I appreciate that the Minister who is here today does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—to do something specifically for people on the breadline?

[Derek Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

It is probably fair to say that although the responsibility lies with the Minister here today, it is not her responsibility, or even in her power, to ensure that every member of the British public can access NHS dentistry, simply because NHS England, or indeed any part of the NHS, does not commission enough dentistry to cover the whole population. Perhaps the Minister will clarify today the Government’s expectation regarding access to NHS dental care, and say whether there is a right for everybody, whoever they might be, to access that care. However, it is a very important point that has been raised. It surprises people that we do not commission enough dentistry to meet the needs of every one of our constituents.

It is not enough to blame the pandemic, although it has certainly not helped. I was raising the state of NHS dentistry in Cornwall before we had a single case of covid in this country. Over two years ago, I spoke about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining dental staff. At Prime Minister’s questions two years ago, I raised the shocking results of the lack of access to NHS dentistry for children in Cornwall. I also told hon. Members that these inequalities needed to be addressed quickly and creatively.

Outside this House, I have been working to improve access to dentistry in the constituency, most recently by getting the council to overturn a decision not to allow electrical works to proceed in St Ives that would have delayed the opening of a new dental surgery until the autumn. I have been meeting the regional health commissioners and Cornwall’s public health officers to discuss dentistry on a regular basis, and I cannot fault their speed and creativity. Their south-west dental reform programme has been working hard to improve access by helping to reopen a surgery in Hayle and in St Ives, piloting child-focused dental practices, and developing its own evidence-based workforce plan, but the Government must lead the way. Resolving these oral health inequalities is not just this Minister’s responsibility; it will require a cross-Government approach.

NHS England has launched a drive to recruit dental professionals to the south-west, but a key challenge in Cornwall, and maybe other parts of the country, is finding housing for those who want to take up a job in dentistry. I am working on that issue with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The national food strategy was a wasted opportunity. We could have extended the sugar tax, which has successfully incentivised the reformulation of sugary drinks. That would have helped oral health as much as health in general. I shall continue to argue for a national food strategy that is truly strategic, even if the Government have made a tactical withdrawal from tax rises to support public health.

The Minister has responsibility for the dental contract. In oral questions in January, she agreed that the contract was

“the nub of the problem”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 195.]

She said in February,

“there is no doubt that the UDA method of contract payments is a perverse disincentive for dentists. The more they do, the less they seem to be paid. I for one certainly do not underestimate the problems that that causes dentists, and I can see why many hand back their NHS contracts.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 780.]

I could not have put it better myself. I have asked dentists in my constituency if they would prefer to see increased budgets or reform of the UDA contract, and they asked for reform.

There are two main issues with the dental contract, both of which are not just obstacles to dental health but actively create problems for the future. First, the current system does not focus on prevention. When units of dental activity are the sole measure of contract performance, there is no incentive for preventative work; nor is there an incentive to make the best use of the whole dental team’s skills when the practice cannot make a claim for payment for a course of treatment purely because it was initiated by someone other than a dentist.

I made sure that the title of the debate referred to NHS dentistry not NHS dentists. We need to recognise the contribution of the whole team of dental professionals —dental nurses, hygienists, therapists and technicians—and use them. Again, this is about not just saving money, but using professionals in the best way we can. Yesterday I spoke to a dental nurse who works with people in care homes. If she wants a resident to switch to a high-fluoride toothpaste, she has to get a dentist to prescribe it. Our regional dental commissioning team has been running a pilot to take supervised toothbrushing conducted by dental nurses out to the community. Given that more five to nine-year-olds are admitted to hospital for tooth decay than for any other reason, this work should be at the heart of NHS dentistry, not something that is topped up by flexible commissioning.

Second, the UDA method does not properly reward dental practices for their work. A dental practice is faced, in effect, with a UDA cap for an entire course of treatment, which means when a patient has complex needs, the money involved does not even cover the overheads of the practice. The predictable result is that dental practices are moving away from NHS work. Around 3,000 dentists in England have stopped providing NHS services since the start of the pandemic. Every time a dentist leaves the NHS and is not replaced, approximately 2,000 people lose access to dental care. If you cannot do the arithmetic in your head, Mr Stringer, 3,000 times by 2,000 is 6 million, so 6 million patients have lost access to a dentist just over the course of the pandemic. For every dentist leaving the NHS, another 10 are reducing their NHS commitment by a quarter on average; that is another 500 patients losing access to an NHS dentist. According to the British Dental Association, 75% of dentists plan to reduce the amount of NHS work they do next year.

The fewer dental practices there are doing NHS work, the more pressure the remaining practices are under. A recent BDA members survey found that nine in 10 owners of dental practices committed to NHS work found recruitment difficult, with 29% of vacancies going unfilled for more than a year. That is nationwide, but one provider in Cornwall told me that their surgeries were unused 52% of the time due to shortages of dentists and nurses. The vast majority said that it was the UDA contract that was the biggest factor in their recruitment difficulties. The Minister said last week that the Government are serious about reforming the dental contract, but I want to press that point. It is not enough to be seriously planning a reform; we must be planning serious reform. Tweaks to the existing system are not enough when the contract is fundamentally flawed.

I have focused on the contract because we need the Minister to focus on the contract. Other Members will no doubt raise the issue of recognising overseas qualifications, passing the section 60 order that would give the General Dental Council discretion over qualifications, maintaining the mutual recognition of professional qualifications with Europe and extending that to the Commonwealth, and expediating the process for experienced candidates to register with the NHS. Dental care professionals need to be allowed to initiate treatments. The issue of funding will come up—for a catch-up programme of overseas registration exams in the short term, and university places in the long term—but it is striking how many of those proposals are cost neutral. We could even save money by catching mouth cancer in the early stages when it is more easily treated.

To quote the Minister, the contract is the nub of the problem. I urge her to commit to a firm date when we will see the end of units of dental activity, and a better contract focused on prevention and increasing access.

Alcohol Harm

Debate between Derek Thomas and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the grave harm to society caused by excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol addiction; further notes that alcohol-specific deaths in 2020 were the highest ever recorded by the Office for National Statistics across many parts of the UK; and calls on the Government to commission an independent review of alcohol harm.

I thank the Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to go ahead. I am grateful to have secured this debate because the issue of harm caused by alcohol misuse has concerned me for many years—since long before I got into this place. I have seen far too many examples of when alcohol misuse has wrecked lives, trashed families, caused great disruption to communities, exhausted police and NHS staff and led to a miserable, hopeless lived experience for those who find they have an alcohol addiction.

I was due to co-sponsor this debate with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who is unable to be here for family reasons. Colleagues will be aware of what he has had to say on this subject in respect of his own lived experience and through his sterling work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm.

I declare an interest as a commissioner on the commission on alcohol harm, which is ably led by Baroness Finlay. She said:

“Alcohol harm impacts us all—in families, our communities, and throughout society. For too long, the onus has been on individuals, with drinkers urged to ‘drink responsibly’…We need to finally acknowledge the true scale of the harm caused by alcohol, which goes far beyond individuals who drink, and put the responsibility squarely with the harmful product itself. By doing so we will help to do away with the stigma and shame that surrounds those who are harmed by alcohol and often stops them from accessing the help that they need.”

Those words were in the introduction to the commission’s “It’s everywhere” report.

The alcohol harm commission was set up to examine the full extent of harm across the UK—the physical, mental and social harm caused to people around the drinker, to wider society and to the drinker themselves. We considered the effectiveness of current alcohol policy and made recommendations for the reduction of harm.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Is he aware that in Northern Ireland there were 336 alcohol deaths in 2019—the highest number of alcohol deaths on record, and up 18% on 2018—and similarly record-high figures in England and Wales for 2020? Does he agree that the Government’s current strategy is not working and that something has to change?

[Derek Thomas]

I absolutely agree. The figures are similarly worrying for Cornwall and across the Isles of Scilly, which I represent. The point of this debate is to try to start a new conversation about how we can support those who are caught up in such a difficult and tragic situation.

Those whose lives are affected by alcohol every day best understand its impact, yet their voices are often missing from policy discussions. We set out, as a commission, to give these individuals a platform. In addition to experts by experience, we heard from hospitals; local councils; UK and devolved Governments; academics and universities; alcohol treatment providers; the alcohol industry; medical royal colleges; children’s charities; homelessness organisations; public health experts; and older people’s representatives.

The commission received evidence on the wide-ranging impact of alcohol on wider society through the burden it places on public services and the economy. In England, hospital admissions related to alcohol reached a record level of 1.26 million in 2018-19, and the total cost of alcohol to the NHS is estimated to be £3.5 billion. The costs of alcohol are not limited to health: my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing has noted that

“alcohol-related crime in England and Wales is estimated to cost society around £11.4 billion per year.”

The body of evidence received by the commission indicates that alcohol is a harmful and addictive substance that must be carefully regulated—as is done with tobacco. Far from being an issue for individual responsibility, as it is often framed by the industry, there is a compelling case for Government intervention to end the cultural celebration and normalisation of alcohol in public, while vulnerable individuals suffer harm and stigma behind closed doors.

The long list of vulnerable people in need of protection from alcohol harm includes alcohol-dependent people, children, drink-drive collision victims, domestic abuse survivors and those who experience crime and antisocial behaviour, including emergency service personnel. Another such example is an unborn baby at risk of foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, a condition caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol in the womb and which is around three to five times more common than autism, but much less widely acknowledged and discussed. FASD is a lifelong neuro-developmental mental disability that affects the brain and body. Maternal alcohol misuse is one common factor in children being taken into care, increasing the likelihood that those children have been exposed to alcohol before birth. The prevalence of FASD is therefore much higher in those who are care experienced, with one study suggesting that two thirds of adopted children are potentially at risk of FASD. It is unacceptable to leave their fate up to individual responsibility. Instead, we need systematic change to protect vulnerable individuals and communities.

For starters, I call on the Government to ensure that those with FASD, or at risk of FASD, are given proper support. One possible route to provide that support would be as part of the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). Her vision for the 1,001 critical days now being brought into reality as part of a newly funded Best Start in Life initiative would be the obvious approach. The family hubs, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has been a great advocate for, is a key part of this initiative and may well be the place where support for children with FASD and their families can be delivered.

The covid-19 pandemic has accelerated alcohol harm in the UK. Deaths from alcohol increased by 20% in England and Wales and by 17% in Scotland in 2020. They are now at the highest level since records began. In England, the number of adults drinking at high-risk nearly doubled between February and June of last year. The data also show a rapid acceleration in deaths from alcoholic liver disease since the start of the pandemic, beyond that of the pre-existing upward trend. Those numbers are alarming. We know that drinking harms more than just our liver, with alcohol being a causal factor in more than 200 diseases and injuries. In my own constituency, between 2016 and 2018, 760 people received an alcohol-related cancer diagnosis. Alcohol is of course also linked to mental health issues: in many countries, including the UK, those with depressive or anxiety symptoms were among the groups with the largest increase in consumption during the pandemic.

Latest data provided to me by the Alcohol Health Alliance showed that, in my constituency, 73% of dependent drinkers in 2019-20 were not in treatment. Shockingly, that is better than the national average. The Royal College of Psychiatrists warned last year that addiction services in the UK are not equipped to treat the soaring numbers of high-risk drinkers.

Even if I had not taken a serious interest in alcohol harm previously, having seen further statistics that relate to my constituents, I have no excuse but to draw attention to this terrible situation. For example, those drinking above the chief medical officer's recommended levels—at-risk drinking—account for 24% of my constituents. There were 220 alcohol-related deaths recorded in 2019, 11,422 alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2019-20, and 192 road traffic accidents attributed to alcohol between 2014 and 2016.

Never before has action on alcohol been so urgently needed as it is now. We must do more; we must do better. The Government must commit to increasing treatment funding and maintaining that funding so that everyone who seeks support is able to receive it. The Dame Carol Black independent review of drugs called for additional funding of £1.78 billion for drug and alcohol treatment services over the next five years. The Government must act on this now. Additionally, there must also be a commitment to increasing the numbers of the addiction treatment workforce.

Outside of treatment service provision, significant work is needed to tackle the stigma surrounding alcohol. While serving on the commission on alcohol harm, I had the privilege of reading and hearing deeply personal and moving testimonials, with experts of experience commonly agreeing that the focus on individual responsibility for drinking leads to a culture of secrecy, shame, and stigma. Tim Norval, an expert by experience, told the commission that the stigma people carry tells them,

“I’m worthless. I’m not worthy of the treatment. I’m not worthy of the support”.

But the blood that runs through their veins is just the same red as mine. There is absolutely no reason whatever that they deserve any less treatment than I would if I had any sort of health condition. We all have a part to play in changing the narrative around alcohol addiction: please, encourage and participate in conversations about drinking and its effects, and challenge the stigmas around alcohol use.

Beyond health consequences for the drinkers themselves, there is of course a significant impact on those around them. A national survey found that approximately one in three victims of domestic violence in England and Wales reported that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol or drugs was thought to be a factor in 61% of care applications in England.

Across the UK, the people from the most deprived areas are more likely to die or be admitted to hospital than those in the least deprived areas. The Institute of Alcohol Studies found that lower socioeconomic groups experience up to 14 times the incidence of alcohol-related violence than higher socioeconomic groups. Researchers have linked alcohol consumption with inequalities in life expectancy, social and emotional wellbeing, and child development. Public Health England has also stated that tackling alcohol-related harm is an important route to reducing health inequalities. In the light of this and the announced levelling-up White Paper, it is important to reiterate that for any levelling-up agenda to be truly successful, it must address alcohol harm as a top priority. Beyond that, there are several additional steps that could move the UK in the right direction.

I have long pressed for minimum unit pricing to be introduced in England to bring us in line with other UK nations. The evidence from Scotland has been highly encouraging. I especially highlight the fact that the impact on prices has almost exclusively been in the off-trade sector, while on-trades prices have largely been unaffected. This is important because colleagues have told me that a reason for not supporting MUP is the perception that it will harm our village pubs. This debate is not related to the “Saving Your Local Pub” campaign, but it is important to note that introducing MUP would have little, if any, impact on pubs and off-licences. What MUP can do is address the “in your face”, cheap alcohol promotion that faces us all when we venture into a supermarket—something that appeared to be more apparent during the lockdowns.

To conclude—I am sure that you will be glad to hear me say that, Madam Deputy Speaker—there are some clear recommendations that I would like the Government to consider and act on, with no unnecessary delay. First, we need to deliver a new comprehensive strategy. The UK Government must introduce a new alcohol strategy as part of the covid-19 national recovery plans. The strategy must take into account the best available evidence and include population-level measures to reduce harm from alcohol. Its development must be free from the influence of the alcohol industry. Although the Government must support economic recovery and our hospitality industry, this must be balanced with minimising harm from alcohol. A new strategy should include the interventions recommended by the World Health Organisation.

The last alcohol strategy will be celebrating its 10th anniversary next year. The Government have so far failed to fulfil their promises for an update, and have now caused fears that alcohol will fall by the wayside while they focus on drugs and gambling. Developing such a strategy, specifically on alcohol, would allow the Government to understand all the influences and drivers of alcohol harm—including its availability, price and marketing—and to identify the most effective ways to tackle this in the UK. The final report of the commission on alcohol harm concluded that we need a new alcohol strategy that is evidence-based, comprehensive, and focused on population-level measures. Organisations such as Alcohol Health Alliance UK, Alcohol Change UK, the OECD and the World Health Organisation have echoed those calls. I support the recommendation wholeheartedly and call on the Government to launch such a strategy urgently.

The second of three recommendations is for the Government to introduce MUP without delay to reduce the consumption of cheap, high-strength products. The Chancellor’s move in this direction in the Budget was welcome. However, alcohol duty collects between £10 billion and £12 billion each year, but is estimated to cost £27 billion in social costs, including the cost to the NHS that I have mentioned.

Finally, I call on the Government to introduce alcohol advertising restrictions to reduce alcohol harm, and protect children and vulnerable people, including those in recovery.

If we have any hope of turning the tide on alcohol harm, there is no more time to wait. We must do more, do it better and do it now.

Covid-19: Vaccination of Children

Debate between Derek Thomas and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas]

I am pretty sure I will not. I congratulate the Minister, who until last week was my favourite Whip and is now the vaccines Minister. It is a great honour to do that job, and I am sad we have to come up against this particular policy because across the board the vaccine programme has been remarkable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing the debate. The issue is agitating and concerning, and enormous numbers of people, including parents, schools and many others, feel it is a step too far.

I am a Conservative. I joined the Conservative party because of a belief in giving people freedom of choice, the ability to deliver and develop their own destiny, and the opportunity to live full, vibrant and fulfilling lives. I think this particular policy goes right against that, and I feel uncomfortable with it. It feels wrong, and I believe it is wrong to introduce this vaccination programme for children aged 12 to 15, considering all that has been said about consent this morning. Before I get started, may I just say that I feel privileged to be in this room where such great points and speeches have been made, because we care about families, children and how our schools are supported in a very difficult and unprecedented time?

Earlier in the year I went to visit St Clare medical centre in my constituency, which was delivering the vaccine programme with great fervour. It has an amazing system going on. In fact, with other primary care networks in my constituency, it was mentioned in dispatches for the incredible effort it put in to get the vaccine out to the most vulnerable people. My constituency was the fifth in the country in getting the most people vaccinated by the February half term.

I observed the logistical challenge and triumph of rolling out the vaccine programme and talked to the practice manager. She described why the additional workload was acceptable: a massive volunteer army was motivated and mobilised, there was an incredible collaboration of GPs, the NHS and all sorts of organisations that had got behind this, and there was organisation across the primary care networks. She said that all of that extra effort—the long weekends and the massive amount of work that went into it—was possible and worthwhile because it was part of the national effort. It really struck home that people right down at the end of the country, in the most beautiful part, who are often tucked away and not necessarily engaged in national efforts, were so enthusiastic and determined to make this work. West Cornwall primary care networks were mentioned by the Secretary of State at the time for their incredible effort in getting vaccines to people in such a quick and effective way.

During the roll-out of the vaccine programme, Ministers fiercely defended the decisions made by the JCVI. The JCVI determined the priority groups—who would get the vaccine and when—and Ministers refused to intervene. They were determined not to intervene, not even to prioritise teachers as schools opened in September last year. They refused to intervene to prioritise the police when some 10,000 policemen descended on my constituency in Cornwall for the G7. There was great concern about that, but Ministers refused to intervene to allow police officers of all ages to have the vaccine ahead of the priority groups set out by the JCVI. Why now, with the help of the chief medical officers, do the Government reject the advice of the JCVI? That advice states:

“The margin of benefit…is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children”.

It also says that

“any impact on transmission may be relatively small”.

In other words, schools would still be disrupted because the vaccine does not manage transmission. I, along with many others, recognise the wisdom of the JCVI’s advice JCVI in this area. We were surprised when, just weeks later, the Government and chief medical officer seemed to take a completely different course. I was relieved when the JCVI made its case and gave that very sound advice. Like many others, I was then disappointed and concerned that the Government seemed to go against it.

The reason for my concern is that the decision to override the JCVI advice will undermine confidence in the vaccine roll-out programme. Up until now, because of the way the JCVI has operated, the country has welcomed the approach, has supported it and had confidence in it. I wonder whether the Government are actually doing it a disservice by potentially undermining confidence in the roll-out. So far, the great strength of the vaccine roll-out is its voluntary nature, based on sound advice and a national united effort.

My fear is that the decision has been made for seemingly unsubstantiated reasons. There are gaping holes in the argument that it will minimise disruption of children’s education. My fear is that it risks turning a national effort into a tool to pressure children, undermine parents and drive an inadvertent wedge between families and schools. Under a new Secretary of State, the Government’s primary priority should be allowing schools to do what they do best: educating children. I ought to declare an interest as I have three children, who are in school at this very moment—or so I hope.

At the beginning of the year, I secured an Adjournment debate on the experience of schools. They have had a blooming rotten time, with changing advice and all sorts of things coming down from Government; they did not know if they were coming or going. What has really concerned schools, teachers and headteachers is that they have taken on a new role—trying to manage children’s health and parts of their welfare—that they never signed up for. It is not that they are unwilling, but that they do not have the time or resources, and they might even add the expertise, to take on those additional responsibilities when what they want is to educate children and give them the best start in life.

All Members’ constituency offices have supported schools in the bizarre work they have had to do to manage parents on different sides of different arguments when it comes to managing covid in schools. I have had parents who are furious with a school for insisting on face coverings in parts of the school, both before that was the official advice and since; I have also had parents furious with a school for saying children do not have to wear a face covering in the classroom. Those poor headteachers and staff have had to deal with that along with all the pressures of teaching children.

What do we do? We make their job a whole lot more difficult by putting schools at the centre of a decision that most of us in this room do not believe is robust or stands up to what scientists have said. We have asked them to take on the additional responsibility of vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds, and to manage the various pressures that come with it, when all they want to do—all they thought they were doing—is go back to school in September, catch up and give their children a happy, healthy and wonderful experience being educated. I really feel for our children.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to one school where there were different opinions between parents about their children. There are different opinions in schools, but it is important to have a policy that is uniform across all schools. Does he feel that when the Minister replies, she could mention any discussions with the Secretary of State for Education about having a uniform policy which applies to all schools? Then the schools would have one rule they could all adhere to.

[Derek Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was going to come on to that. We are entering into a very difficult situation. We need to protect schools and enable them to do their job, not drive a wedge between parents and schools. At the same time, we want schools to be very clear about their responsibilities and how they can manage issues of coercion, peer pressure and so on. It is a tricky issue for the Minister to grapple with.

I would like the Minister to ensure and confirm three things. I imagine that it will make up the vast majority of her work over the next few weeks, now that the Government have made their decision. Obviously, many of us would rather they had ditched that decision and instead made sure that the vaccine got to people in developing countries who really need it. If we really care about keeping this country and the rest of the western world safe—if that is our priority—then supporting the vaccination of the whole world, instead of our children, is the answer. However, that is a separate issue that the vaccines Minister probably cannot address on her own.

In line with the intervention I have just received, can the Minister make it absolutely clear that parents have the information they need, that they understand their rights, and that they are very clear about schools’ role in providing the vaccine and supporting children to have the vaccine, if that is what parents wish for their children? Can we also ensure that the vaccine is given only when informed and voluntary consent is clearly given—when it is definitely there, free from peer pressure and coercion?

We are now asking schools to somehow play referee in a situation that should never be in their remit. The desire to get on top of covid and get things going again could lead to a situation where things go wrong and become difficult in the school environment.

Back British Farming Day

Debate between Derek Thomas and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for securing this important debate. I rise to speak in this timely and necessary debate to demonstrate that I back British farming, which is something people across the UK have done with great enthusiasm during the pandemic as we all learned how precarious our food supply chain can be.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), it is time for the Home Office to take the opportunity to demonstrate its support for British farming. I say that because our farmers do not yet know if they will be given access to foreign workers through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme in just 14 weeks’ time. SAWS is not a new idea. It has been serving the food and farming sector for decades by giving access to foreign workers through visas, but it has been necessary to revive it due to the Government quite rightly bringing an end to free movement of EU nationals.

The Home Office must act quickly to help British farmers harvest their crops. This year, farmers from across my constituency have raised with me issues of staff shortages affecting the harvesting of potatoes and other crops. They are very concerned about the situation they will be in in a few weeks’ time. For many, the crop is already in the ground.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Derek Thomas]

Certainly, but please be brief.

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly will. The hon. Gentleman has tempted me, but I thank him for giving way. It is not just about the crops in the fields; the pig-producing factories cannot get workers either, and those jobs are fairly skilled. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a duty to not only those who bring the crops in, but those who work in the factories and produce the food as well?

[Derek Thomas]

I welcome that intervention, but that is a slightly different issue because that work is—it is often 12-month work, and the resettlement status and various other things can help with that.

I talk unapologetically about the need in Cornwall, but we need people to be able to come and harvest the crops, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned includes daffodils. The Home Office can help farmers by agreeing to our demands to continue access to seasonable agricultural workers next year and by addressing the urgent need facing Cornish MPs, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, the DEFRA Secretary—it might be awkward for him—and myself. The truth is that we will be driving to London next January, February and March staring at fields covered in beautiful yellow flowers. I appreciate the view, as will anyone who comes to Cornwall on holiday, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, £100 million-worth of daffodils are picked in Cornwall—we provide 86% and the UK provides 95% of the world’s daffodils—and to see those flowers sitting in the fields for us to enjoy is not fair on those in London and elsewhere who should also be enjoying them. It is also not fair on HMRC.

There is an urgent need to secure a workforce to harvest our daffodils. SAWS is limited, as we know, to edible crops. My ask, and that of my colleagues and Cornish daffodil growers, who produce almost 80% of the nation’s daffodils, is to simply extend the SAWS pilot to include daffodils. That would extend the visa to nine months, rather than six, to cover January to April and would include the harvesting of non-edible crops. If the Home Office is really concerned, it could just specify daffodils. We would be happy with that.

I have not heard any local dissent regarding the fact that citizens from overseas work in west Cornwall and on Scilly. If the Home Office is concerned about immigration numbers—I do not believe that this is not immigration, but seasonal agricultural work to meet a demand—the scheme to keep the 30,000 workers for nine months would suit its desire. This year we needed a further 1,000 daffodil pickers. The Home Office believes that a workforce is here in the UK, but my daffodil producers tested that. They increased pay, advertised widely and locally, and increased the hours available to work. Despite that, we lost 20% of our daffodils, and 274 million stems were left in the ground.

This is an urgent issue. I have spoken to the Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, DEFRA, a Home Office Minister and the Home Secretary about it. When I spoke to the Home Office Minister, he said that we need to demonstrate that the work is not poorly paid with poor accommodation. In fact, the producers increased the money to attract the pickers. The average hourly wage was £12.08. Some were earning £1,000 a week, and each year the accommodation is inspected by the migrant workers officer. Daffodil growers have rightly improved pay and conditions because they know they will lose their pickers to perhaps much more enjoyable work such as—dare I say it?—strawberry picking. It is amazing that strawberries in the sunshine are being left in the ground when it is so much easier to pick a strawberry than a daffodil.

I will leave it there, but this is a devastatingly important issue. I will finish with a quote from Churchill for the Home Office to hear. At the height of the second world war when ornamentals were not allowed to be picked, he said:

“These people must be enabled to grow their flowers and send them to London— they cheer us up…in these dark days”.

Let us do what we can to protect an industry that does so much to cheer up the nation.