Coeliac Disease and Prescriptions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. There is evidence—including from my own family—that gluten intolerance and coeliac disease run in families. If a young family includes several children with this condition, the cost could be significant.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

To reinforce the point, my constituent Sheryl Rees has drawn my attention to the fact that her son was diagnosed with coeliac disease when he was two. He is now 11. She pointed out the cost of gluten-free items. For example, a small loaf is £3. A pizza is £4. Pasta is £2 a pack. Basically, she is paying double. She has a family of six. This is really impacting on her family’s budget.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, especially in terms of families with children. There is also a question of availability in some rural areas. Larger supermarkets stock some of these products at the prices he mentioned and higher, but in other areas the products are not available.

Brain Tumours

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to that.

Between 2000 and 2012, we spent about £35 million on brain tumour research. The Government have rightly said that such spending has increased tenfold. It has, but it has increased from a very low base. That £35 million is from a total of about £4.5 billion of spending on cancer research.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Brain Tumour Charity is based in Farnborough in my constituency. The hon. Lady mentioned the £35 million. Is that just public sector funding, or does it encompass private sector funding? The Brain Tumour Charity has already invested £14 million and plans to invest another £25 million by 2020.

[Helen Jones]

That £35 million includes spending from the voluntary sector. The report states that it is simply not good enough for the Government to leave decisions on such spending solely to the voluntary sector.

We welcome the decision of Cancer Research UK and Children with Cancer UK to prioritise spending on brain tumour research as a cancer of unmet need, but we are calling on the Government to identify the gaps in funding, to take action to remedy them and most important, to make it clear that they see this research as a priority. We heard evidence that creating a positive research environment with an emphasis on increasing funding would not only keep our scientists in this country, but attract scientists from elsewhere in the world. Britain has the potential to be a world leader in this sort of research but at the moment we are not.

The Government said in their reply to the petition that decisions on funding are based on a number of factors, including the size and quality of the workforce. That ignores the fact that, as the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, this is a Catch-22 situation. At the moment, young trained oncologists are having to change specialties or leave this country to pursue their research. Without an increase in funding, we simply cannot attract the good PhD students and postdoctoral researchers we need to make progress and to build up the cohort of young scientists who will go on to research this disease and may make the important discoveries of the future.

There are other barriers to research. One is the difficulty of getting enough tissue to work on. Only about 30% of patients are asked whether they will donate tissue, yet polls show that up to 90% would do so if asked. We do not have enough specialist support nurses and, according to the evidence, we do not even have enough people who can transfer tissue from hospitals to laboratories.

The other problem that researchers come across—the Government really could act in this area—is that they must make applications to many local biobanks to get enough material to work on. Often, those biobanks have different procedures, application forms and so on. We urge the Government, while keeping safeguards in place, to try to tackle the problem of biobanking. Unless researchers have access to tissue, they cannot do the fundamental research that we need. The University of Southampton has started to use tissue left over from diagnosis but, again, the system is grossly underfunded. In the end, I am afraid the issue comes back to money if we want to make progress.

We also highlight other issues, such as the need for access to non-therapeutic drugs, which can improve brain surgery outcomes, and the need for access to off-patent drugs, which can be used for new indications. The Government said in response to the Off-patent Drugs Bill that they did not need a Bill to allow that. We need to make progress in that area urgently, but I will not spend too much time on it now, because we are pressed for time.

I do, however, want to say this to the Government. I said earlier that brain tumours may not be as rare as is perceived, and the reasons for that are simple. The numbers are going up. The system of recording has been changed. The experts who spoke to us said that they do not yet know the reasons for that. Secondary tumours are not recorded, yet they still have to be treated, and benign tumours are not recorded, but they can still kill. It is that, and the huge burden of the disease, that we think the Minister ought to take into account, or at least ought to get his Department to take into account, to deal with this issue. The five-year survival rate for brain tumours is only 19.8%. When it comes to cancer as a whole, 50% survive for 10 years or more. That is the difference, because of lack of funding and lack of research.

I hope that the Minister will look at the personal stories in our report. They are there for a reason. Let me remind people of some of them: Saira Ahmed, dead at the age of 6, Abbie Walker, also dead at 6, Lucy Goulding, who died at 16, and Stephen Realf, whose sister started the petition. An RAF officer who was apparently in excellent health, he was diagnosed at 19 and dead at 26. There are many more, whom I do not have time to name. There are those who died and those who survived—remarkable people such as Hannah Jones, a young woman who gave evidence to us and now devotes her time to promoting the HeadSmart campaign. And there are the families of those who died. In all my time in Parliament, I have never met such an amazing group of people. They had undergone the most appalling tragedies, but did not want to point the finger of blame. They simply wanted to use their experience to make life better for others. They deserve that we listen to what they say.

I say gently to the Minister that it is not often in ministerial life that one gets a chance to make a real difference. We know that Ministers get bogged down in the minutiae of every day and that things come down the chain to them, but this is a chance to make a difference. It is a chance to leave a mark that will be there long after he leaves ministerial office—not that I am hoping he will leave soon—long after most of us have left Parliament, in fact.

Drugs: Ultra-rare Diseases

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland]

That is a powerful suggestion, as is using the surplus from the tariffs that drug companies are expected to pay to form part of a fund. There certainly needs to be an overhaul.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I will give way, but I am conscious that I have not gone through the process yet.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

We are all extremely grateful that the hon. Gentleman has been so generous in giving way. Like him, I was at Downing Street last week, supporting my constituent Harry Barnley, who suffers from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The headquarters of the Batten Disease Family Association are in Farnborough in my constituency. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) referred to ring fencing. Part of the problem is that there is a very small number of these cases and they are very expensive to treat. I wonder whether we should either ring-fence some funding or introduce a surcharge on prescription charges generally paid by the public, so that the funding issue is taken out of it. There are two issues: the clinical issue and the funding. If we remove the funding issue, we can concentrate on the clinical issue.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am sure the Minister will want to consider that in his drive for an appropriate system.

After NHS England suspended the use of the scorecard on 2 December, a meeting of the NHS England clinical priorities advisory group on 15 December was called off. That is when we started campaigning for an interim process while NHS England went back to the drawing board. NHS England refused to do that, which I am sorry to say left all these families in the dark, with no idea what would happen next or in what timescale. NHS England then launched a consultation on 27 January, with a new process for deciding which drugs to fund that closed on 27 April. We still have not heard the decision. We have been told that there may be a decision on 25 June, although that has not been confirmed in writing. I hope that the Minister will give confirmation today.

Linked to that are the recent NICE recommendations, and particularly those on Vimizim. Even though we were clearly told by NHS England that its decision on 25 June would not be dependent on NICE, it now says that it will not approve Vimizim because NICE will not do so in the short term. The whole thing is a fiasco and an embarrassment. I understand the Minister’s argument that we cannot have political interference. However, the Secretary of State for Health made clear when he appeared before the Public Administration Committee in the previous Parliament that he accepts that the buck stops with him. When things are wrong and when bureaucrats are failing, it comes to his desk and to the Life Sciences Minister’s desk. I urge the Minister to take that up.

I pay tribute to the MPS Society for its amazing campaigning, and particularly to the chief executive Christine Lavery, whose son Simon had Morquio and died in 1982 aged just seven. Her passion and her colleagues’ passion have inspired me and others, and we will continue to work with them. The enzyme replacement therapy produced by BioMarin, Vimizim, is currently supplied on a free trial by BioMarin to 34 patients around the country out of a total of 88 patients, so more people with Morquio are not getting Vimizim than are.

The list price for Vimizim is £395,000 per person per year. In October, BioMarin proposed a fixed-term arrangement with NHS England to supply the drug at a lower price for a number of years. After BioMarin’s offer in October, NHS England did not even reply, despite repeated follow-ups, forcing BioMarin to announce in February that it would cease to supply the drug after 11 May; that date was then extended to 25 June. Having heard nothing, BioMarin said that it would have to withdraw the drug.

GP Services

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I hope that I have given the hon. Lady some reassurance about the Government’s commitment to invest £1 billion in primary and community care infrastructure over the next four years, which will help many local GPs. I also gave a reassurance to her hon. Friends earlier in the debate. I will certainly ask my noble Friend Earl Howe to look into the matter and write to her. He might also be available for a meeting, if time permits, before the end of this Parliament.

Integrating care is of course a priority for the Government. The better care fund has already made headway by combining £5.3 billion of existing funding into local authorities and the NHS—combining health and social care pots, which will be of great benefit to the frail elderly and people with long-term conditions such as dementia and heart disease. In addition, we have backed the new models of care set out in NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”, with a £200 million transformation fund. That will allow the NHS to pilot new models, such as multi-speciality community providers, which aim to provide more proactive, person-centred and joined-up care.

In conclusion, the initiatives that I have described are geared around not only increasing the cash and resources available for general practice in the short term, but radically transforming the way we deliver care, which will ensure that we have GP services fit for the future.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I will take one last intervention.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to the House, because I have been following this important debate not only occasionally in the Chamber, but on the screens. In the area around Aldershot and Camberley, GPs have got together to provide out-of-hours services run by them, and it works, so there are good practices providing accessible out-of-hours services, where GPs have come together to provide that cover for their patients, not for other surgeries’ patients.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We talked earlier about the GP contract changes in 2004. Many local GPs have recognised the barriers that can be put in the way of delivering high-quality, local patient care and have worked together to provide local solutions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has provided £100 million to support the return to seven-days-a-week services, and I think that rural practices will increasingly want to bid for that fund. Initial funding has predominantly gone to urban areas, but areas such as Suffolk are now looking to bid, because local GPs recognise that it is in the best interests of patients to provide locally run, seven-days-a-week services. I commend my hon. Friend’s local GPs for what they are doing to deliver that care in Aldershot.

Under this Government, more money is going to general practice. We have returned to having a dedicated GP for every patient. There are over 1,000 more GPs, and we plan to train 5,000 more. If we have a Conservative-led Government after May, we will return to seven-days-a-week GP care for all by 2020. This Government are backing GPs and delivering the care that patients deserve.

Contaminated Blood

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend. The report by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who I will call my hon. Friend for these purposes, covered those issues in some detail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North will speak about some of the practical issues to do with financial provision.

Following the public meetings, we decided to take the opportunity to use new technology. Both the all-party group and my group of colleagues went out with surveys to as many people as we could find. I am deeply grateful for support given by YouGov and the personal support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, whose commitment and resource allowed us to do this job. It is a measure of the impact of this problem that about 1,000 people responded to our surveys, which is statistically way above the normal response to such surveys. We are profoundly grateful to those who responded so honestly and no doubt with much pain as they went over difficult and hurtful circumstances in an effort to inform us and the Government of what they had experienced. Key findings in our survey included the ideas that lump sums rather than ongoing payments might suit some sufferers better, that ongoing support for widowed partners and spouses was vital and that some form of inquiry was still relevant. All our findings have been reported to Government.

We then asked more people to contact their Members of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has just mentioned. The number of colleagues now involved is well into three figures, and the number who have signed our motion can be seen on the Order Paper. I have colleagues who wanted to be here but could not—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Erewash (Jessica Lee). I could go on about their stories for some time.

I do not expect the Minister to deal with the possibility of further financial relief today. I accept that the delay to Penrose means it is possible that it could report in such a way as to require some form of response from the Government that might have financial implications which it would be unwise to commit to now and have to revise again quite soon. However, I put it on record that I do not expect that closure can be effected without some further financial provision. There will always be inevitable arguments about money. The truth for a Government is always that at any one moment there is money and no money. When the banks needed to be bailed out, money was found. When we needed to compensate those who had lost their futures through Equitable Life, even if all the money could not be found, over £1 billion was found. If, God forbid, the country were to have a catastrophe tomorrow, we would find money. A catastrophe? Perhaps 1,800 dead is a catastrophe.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has done on this. I do not have any constituents who are affected, but I have served in this House, along with him, since 1983, and I feel that this is business that neither the House nor successive Governments have properly resolved. Does he agree that as this blood was provided by the national health service—by the state—it is therefore the responsibility of the state to sort out the affliction that has affected these people over decades?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. He is yet another example of an MP who does not have a constituency interest but has recognised the responsibility that we all share, and the state shares, for what has happened.

Only this morning we saw in one of the newspapers that local authorities had spent £5 billion on consultants. As I say, at any one time a Government will have no money or can find money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

No, we have not. The NHS funds were allocated on the basis of a formula and the extra money was given to the places that were most off-target on the basis of the number of older people, the level of social deprivation and a range of other important factors. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have increased the NHS budget in real terms in his area, whereas those on his own Front Bench wanted to cut it.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to salute the efforts made by Frimley Park hospital, the first hospital in the land to have been awarded outstanding status by the Care Quality Commission? Is it not the case that it has responded well to the pressures and elicited praise from my constituents, which is down in large measure to the leadership of Sir Andrew Morris, who was rightly awarded a knighthood in the new year’s honours?

[Mr Hunt]

I think it is, and my hon. Friend is right that it is a brilliant hospital; it serves my constituents as well. One of the things it is doing is helping to turn around Heatherwood and Wexham Park hospitals trust, which was in special measures, including its A and E department, which is doing much better. Sir Andrew Morris has been running that hospital for 26 years, and that kind of stability in leadership makes a huge difference.

Aerospace Industry

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made about the lead time for developing new aircraft today in comparison with even a generation ago. This morning, we had a briefing from the Royal Navy project director on the joint strike fighter programme. That programme has taken 14 years of development to get to where it is today, and we are a long way from getting any aeroplanes into service, which really illustrates my hon. Friend’s point.

[Sir Peter Luff]

That is true in the civil and defence markets—long lead times are a characteristic of new aircraft development. That is why the AGP is intended to span 15 years, and why it is vital that it receives cross-party support, to ensure support continues throughout future Administrations. Therefore, I have a central and, I hope, easy question for the Opposition. Do Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition hold true to the principles to which Labour worked in the last Parliament, and do they still endorse the broad approach being followed by the Government in this Parliament, subject to the kind of detailed questions that we are asking today?

I cannot avoid the sensitive issue of the understandable rivalry between Airbus and Boeing. I bow to no one in my respect and admiration for Airbus UK and its management team. I bitterly regret that the British share in the ownership of this fine business was lost when BAE Systems unwisely divested its shareholding. As a result of that decision, we have to work all the harder to ensure that we keep, and if possible increase, the UK’s share of each Airbus aircraft that is built. Airbus employs around 10,000 people directly in the UK: 6,000 at its site in Broughton, north Wales; and 4,000 at Filton, in Bristol. Broughton manufactures the wings for all Airbus civil aircraft; Filton designs the wings, as well as designing and testing the fuel systems and landing gear. Filton is also the manufacturing site for the wings of the A400M military transport aircraft, which will soon go into RAF service as Atlas. The Airbus supply chain involves another 1,000 UK companies; Airbus is one of the UK’s biggest inward investors in R and D, with 2013 investment at around £480 million; and there is the new North factory in Broughton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is a delight to participate in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), who was my colleague at the Ministry of Defence. He has done us all a great favour in raising the debate, which follows a debate we had on 22 November 2012. Many of the key points that have surfaced in today’s debate were also mentioned then. I share his recollection of the Viscount flying over Windsor because I was at school at Haileybury and Imperial Service College junior school in Windsor. Indeed, I used to fly on the Viscount 700 from the then new Heathrow airport to my home in Hamburg in Germany.

I also share an appreciation of the Farnborough air show, which takes place in my constituency. Those present who did not attend the Farnborough air show need to report to my study afterwards to explain why, because the whole world comes to Farnborough. Interestingly, this year the air show was responsible for the signing of a record number of orders for new aircraft and systems. About $83 billion of business was done at the last air show; this year $200 billion of business was signed at Farnborough. It is hugely important to the British economy and to our industry.

Farnborough is home to BAE Systems, the world’s fourth largest defence contractor, and QinetiQ, which is one of the world’s leading research companies. QinetiQ holds more than 1,500 patents, 1,000 patents pending and has 1,000 defence contracts at any one time. Farnborough also has the headquarters of AgustaWestland International. Its senior vice-president in charge of international business is no less than our former colleague Geoff Hoon, with whom I get on extremely well. He is doing a great job promoting the interests of Westland around the world. I also have a lot of smaller companies in my constituency, such as Cam Lock, which makes face masks for every US naval fast jet in operation and for the Royal Air Force. I have EWST, which makes electronic warfare testing equipment. I have Sonardyne, which makes detection equipment. A huge amount goes on in my constituency, and I hope hon. Members will understand why I am keen to take part in the debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire said, aerospace is a hugely successful business in the United Kingdom. We are world leaders. We have the second largest aerospace industry in the world and the biggest in Europe. We have 17% of the world market. The UK industry is split 50:50 between civilian and military. It employs 109,000 people directly and 120,000 indirectly. It is a massive contributor to manufacturing industry. Everyone is talking about the importance of the manufacturing industry for this country, but we have in our midst the world’s second most successful manufacturing industry. Let us go out there and promote it. It is not just BAE Systems, QinetiQ or Rolls-Royce, but a whole string of companies, whose names I cannot exhaust. I will single out a few: MBDA, which stands for Matra BAE Dynamics Alenia; Cobham; Marshall; Babcock; Serco; Martin-Baker; and Bombardier—formerly Short Brothers. I have seen some of the fantastic work that goes on in Northern Ireland, which is world leading in missile technology.

Aerospace manufacturing is done across the kingdom, including in Scotland, which I hope will remain part of the kingdom. As the son of a Scottish borderer, I am going to Scotland on 15 September—battle of Britain day—to fight for the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom.

We have hundreds of SMEs—another success story. In 2008 there were 380 enterprises engaged in this industry, according to the Library’s very helpful brief. Today that figure is 560. This industry is growing, and it provides prosperity to the United Kingdom. That is critically important. Interestingly, the 2009 Oxford Economics paper states:

“A £100 million investment in the defence industry generates an increase in gross output of £227 million, and increases Exchequer revenues by £11.5 million.”

[Sammy Wilson]

Northern Ireland is the ninth biggest European region for the aerospace industry and we therefore greatly feel the pressures. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are great pressures on the industry because of the high exchange rate, the difficulty in getting finance from banks—and the effect that has had, especially on the small and medium-sized enterprise supply chain—and the anti-competitive practices in other countries, where certain firms are given advantages that we do not have in the United Kingdom?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about having one hand tied behind our back. Our businesses are not hugely helped by the anti-corruption legislation that we have put in place, which other countries do not sign up to as readily as we do. In fairness, I acknowledge the huge importance of Northern Ireland in the wider United Kingdom aerospace business: it is an integral part, not an add-on.

The aerospace industry contributes two things. First, there is the prosperity, which I have illustrated. Secondly, it provides us with the sovereign capability to defend ourselves. That is critically important. We can all see what is currently going on around the world. It is devastating for those of us who have been around a bit. Things have never looked so uncertain, volatile and frightening. We need to remember that we have taken our defence for granted. In much of it, we are assisted by the United States of America, its massive spending programme and its lynchpin role in NATO. In the United Kingdom we have the ability to defend ourselves. We are not reliant on other people, who might withhold technology or equipment. We must be able to generate such things in the United Kingdom.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire and I were in the MOD we had a battle about whether we should have a defence industrial strategy, and whether maintaining a sovereign capability in the United Kingdom should be a key Government policy. He and I were on the same side. It is common knowledge that some of my colleagues in the Conservative party took the view we should not have any kind of industrial policy. They felt that was interventionist and socialist. I do not accept that. The Government have a responsibility for the defence of the realm. That is the first duty of Government. We have responsibility to ensure we have the means to protect ourselves. Two years ago I paid tribute to Lord Drayson, who produced the defence industrial strategy, and I do so again. It is one of best, most articulate and clearest documents to be produced on this matter. As Lord Drayson said, we have to remember that today’s kit is the result of yesterday’s investment. Therefore, we have to invest today.

I congratulate the Government on what they have done on the aerospace growth partnership and the defence growth partnership. There has been a genuine partnership, with industry and the Government working together. That is the sort of thing we need to do and I warmly welcome it. Industry is also doing well on the skills front. BAE Systems has a huge investment in taking on young people and giving them skills. Leo Quinn, the chief executive of QinetiQ in my constituency, is seriously concerned about the promotion of skills. As my hon. Friends the Member for Mid Worcestershire and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said, we need to do more to promote the merit, mobility, importance and excitement of the manufacturing industry, particularly in the field of aerospace and defence.

We should, however, be concerned, because the order book of BAE Systems is declining. It stands at £40 billion and that is a massive figure, but it is falling, and we know the pressure that defence budgets are under around the world. There is increasing competition from other countries. We have promoted defence exports—and the Prime Minister has been magnificent in giving a lead on that—but it is not possible to sell anything nowadays without being prepared to transfer the technology. We face a growing challenge from India and China, who want to take their place in this important marketplace. If we will have to transfer our technology every time we seek to sell the Typhoon or other important military equipment, what is there for the United Kingdom? How are we going to feed our people? That is where innovation comes in. That is where investment in technology, and defence research in particular, comes in. I could not agree more with the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire that innovation underpins growth. I have made a note that the only way we can compete is by innovation. We are all on the same page with that.

The Government have a role to play. Unfortunately, there has been a fall in defence research by the Ministry of Defence. The latest figures are not encouraging. In 1990-91 the Government spent, at 2012-13 prices, pretty well £4 billion on defence research. That figure fell to £1.8 billion in 2010-11. Fortunately, industry seems to be spending more. According to KPMG, 75% of respondents to a survey said that they would spend between 2% and 3% of revenues on research and development in the next two years; 16% said they would spend between 4% and 5%. If we are to maintain our position in the world we must do that. We must also decide where we go after the joint strike fighter. I have been visiting BAE Systems at Warton for many years. When I used to go there 20 or 30 years ago, I would always be told “We are okay for the next five or 10 years, and then there is a cliff edge.” The Typhoon came along, and now we have JSF—but where do we go after that? I do not believe that manned fighter aircraft can simply be consigned to the dustbin of history. Manned flight still has a critical role to play, particularly in situation awareness.

I welcome what the Government and BAE Systems are doing with Taranis, which is an ITAR-free programme that I launched to the press, who were not allowed to come within 50 yards of it, I am pleased to say. However, we need to maintain the technology. Taranis is a great technology demonstrator. We need more technology demonstrators and we also need a proper debate on where the industry will go, post-JSF.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone.

Manufacturing and aerospace are clearly vital to the economy of north-east Wales and the north-west of England. At the heart of that, as has been mentioned, is Airbus at Broughton, where there are more than 6,000 jobs at one plant. Importantly, there are thousands more in the supply chain. We do not talk enough about the supply chain, although I am pleased that other hon. Members have done so today—without it, the primes would not be able to produce the goods. We should give it more support and discussion.

Airbus alone supports more than 100,000 jobs in the supply chain, and if we included the other aerospace primes the number would be very high. That area of activity is high quality and export-driven; it raises billions of pounds for the UK every year, and the jobs are of high quality as well.

If such a level of employment is to be maintained, and if there is to be expansion and growth, we need to improve our skills base. Even during the economic downturn, companies told me that they found it difficult to find skills at the level they need. Apprenticeships are important in that context; in the past three years in the UK, Airbus alone has enrolled 4,000 apprentices. It is telling that 70% of its senior managers were apprentices at one time. We need to send a message—I am pleased that other hon. Members have mentioned this—that apprenticeships are not something for kids who do not get to university because they are not bright enough. They are very important. We need to adopt more of a German model, where it is not a case of university for some and apprenticeships for others. We need a programme where it is more possible for people to transfer between the two. Most employers would probably say that the ideal person has a university qualification but has worked or done some training in the workplace—not someone who has been nowhere but the classroom, but someone who has skills they can use and the benefit of a university education.

We have a long way to go to catch up. For every pound that the UK spends on research and development, France spends £10 and Germany spends £15. Many hon. Members have mentioned the Aerospace Growth Partnership, which is doing a good job. It needs more, and we should help it more, but the key, as has been mentioned, is the fact that it has cross-party support.

A problem in the past has been that whoever came into government chucked things out and brought other things in, which led to uncertainty. Big employers—even small employers—do not know whether to invest in the relevant area, and whether the Government will still support them. A classic example of what I mean is the area of composites. The UK failed to invest in the coming material for aircraft. I was pleased that Lord Mandelson grasped that and realised that we should provide support. If we had not done that—we were well behind the Spanish and Germans, and I think we still are; we need to do much more work—we would have been in a difficult position.

The importance of the A400M, which has already been mentioned, was civil as well as military, because it demonstrated that we could do the relevant work with composites. The A350 extra-wide body will be 53% composite. Our colleagues in Europe—our partners in Airbus—would love to get their hands on that work. The Spanish and Germans have made no pretence about it. We are fortunate to have it, but I do not think that, just because we have built the wings for years, we can assume that we will always get them in years to come. We are only as good as our last aircraft, or our potential to produce the next one. Clearly the next big challenge for Airbus will be the replacement for the A320, which is the workhorse of so many airlines. If we were not to get that work, the longer-term future for Airbus in the UK would be bleak.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Airbus A320. I happened to fly in one of the test models. It was, of course, a good example of Government and industry working together; the Thatcher Government put £250 million into the programme. Margaret Thatcher took a lot of persuading, but eventually even she agreed that Government intervention on that was a good idea.

[Mark Tami]

I totally agree. Going even further back, I remember when an Industry Secretary had the choice whether to keep the Airbus share or go for Concorde. He went for Concorde, which, in hindsight, was probably not the best choice. There will be crucial choices for the UK about Airbus in the coming years; the new A320 is almost certain to be a wholly composite aircraft, with structures different from those we are used to.

There is a big challenge for us out there, but there are also other threats to Airbus. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) mentioned unfair competition. There is nothing wrong with competition, which is good in many ways, but unfair competition is bad and threatens the future of an important industry. For years, the US dominated both the civil and military aircraft markets and I suppose it thought that no one would ever challenge it. Airbus did, however, and it now accounts for a large share. New players such as China, Canada, Russia and Brazil are all looking for a segment of the market, so we cannot assume that the big players will remain unchallenged.

We need only to look at the 747, which was funded by the American Government as a military transport aircraft. Boeing actually received all the funding and had many of its costs paid and then—surprise, surprise—somebody decided that people could also be put on it and that it could be used as a civil airliner. Airbus and Boeing have both been to the World Trade Organisation. Such processes are always long and drawn out, but the WTO found in 2012 that many of the US subsidies were not allowable under WTO rules. Back in 2011, the WTO found that repayable launch investment was, but there was some issue with the interest rates.

The EU has sought to address some issues, but, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, the Americans have done the exact opposite and decided to give the biggest ever single tax break of $9 billion to Washington state, which will then hand it on to Boeing to pay for the development costs of the 777X, which is exactly what was done with the 747. That is happening at a time when America is looking to Europe for an agreement about more competition and more open markets.

To be honest, the problem is that the US wants to compete freely in our markets, but it does not think that we should be able to compete in theirs. We have seen that before, such as when BAE Systems tried to break into the American defence market. Probably the worst example was the air tanker competition in the US, which was won convincingly by Airbus, but Boeing then went crying to the US Government, who then stopped the competition and changed the rules so that Boeing could be the only winner. Surprise, surprise, the contract went to Boeing.

I certainly do not want us to return to a system of closed markets because that would not be good for Airbus or our industry, but we need a level playing field. We cannot have a system in which we are expected to play by the rules when others are not; many jobs will be lost, plants will close and we will return to Boeing, or whatever company, ruling the roost once more. We want open markets for our companies to compete in and can expect that America does as well, but the situation cannot be unfair. I hope that our Government will be far more forthright with Europe and will work with it to ensure that we stand up and make our case, because it is vital to the future of the industry.

I want to refer to another threat—the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire may disagree with me on this: our future in Europe. I am particularly worried because Airbus is an example of the perfect way in which Europe can work together. Were we outside the EU, I have serious doubts that we would have the same level of investment. I am not saying that the plants at Filton or Broughton would close tomorrow or that we would lose existing orders, but we would jeopardise future investment as the Germans, the French and the Spanish would make a strong case for investment to be made within the European Union and not in an outside country. Those who are calling for our exit need to consider the implications for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Going back to what the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) asked in an earlier intervention, not only with specific regard to particular trades and fitting, but the whole education system, from primary through secondary education and on to further and higher education, the system should be geared up to say, “The aerospace industry: you could have a fantastic career if you choose it.” Going to work in a factory, in particular somewhere such as Airbus in Broughton, is certainly not a sign of failure. I would be absolutely delighted if one of my children won an Airbus apprenticeship. It is a fantastic success story, which we need to encourage. The culture of this country is that we do not make anything in Britain any more, but that is simply not true in practice. What steps are the Government taking on manufacturing in general and aerospace in particular to ensure that that is dealt with?

I mentioned the success of exports for the UK aerospace industry, with 90% of the high-value products made by the sector in Britain exported overseas. However, the industry has told me—the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire mentioned this—that more support and co-ordination are needed for export sales campaigns. Primes and suppliers have said to me fairly consistently that they would like more advanced information and to be more closely involved when Ministers are travelling on trade missions, or when international delegations are visiting the UK. Will the Minister respond to what seems to be a constant voice?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) said, the UKTI Defence & Security Organisation has done a fantastic job under Richard Paniguian. May I add that, in my experience, our embassies around the world are fantastic? For the record, the late Simon Featherstone, our high commissioner in Malaysia, was one of those diplomats who really helped us.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. To draw his remarks to a close, I call Iain Wright.

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Lady’s response serves to illustrate the difference between opposition and government. I agree that Sir Cyril has produced a compelling report; I recommended it to the House and urged everybody to take the opportunity to read it. He has made a compelling case on the public health evidence, but to make robust policy in this area it is essential that we follow a careful process. That means we have to look at everything in the round, and we have to give everybody who has a stake in the decision an opportunity to make their case. That is what we will proceed to do. I have drawn the House’s attention in the past to the fact that the Australian Government are still engaged in litigation in this area. We need to proceed in a sensible way, but I could not have given the House a clearer indication of the fact that we are moving at the pace dictated by a sensible and robust policy approach. That is the requirement for making good policy.

I am glad the hon. Lady drew attention to Sir Cyril’s review of the evidence from the Stirling review. He did more than just look at the Stirling review; he commissioned independent academic review of its methodology and concluded that it was robust. That is part of his review. As I said, I urge Members to look at that.

Members will have heard the hon. Lady’s response. I can only say to her that at every stage we have proceeded in a sensible, measured but clear way. We took the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014, for which there was a large parliamentary majority. We will publish draft regulations alongside the final short consultation to look at the wider issues, and we will then move as swiftly as possible to a final decision based on all those elements. That gives the House a clear sense of our direction of travel. I want to make sure that, whatever decision the Government finally take, it is robust and one that everyone can have confidence in.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is most unfortunate that this statement has been made today, when so few Members who take an interest in these matters are present. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument is that we should ban tobacco altogether if it does so much damage to our people. I do not believe this is a Conservative measure. It is an example of the nanny state. I see the Secretary of State whispering into my hon. Friend’s ear—I hope he is whispering some sound advice to her. At present 13% of packs sold are illicit, denying the Treasury £3 billion. If the Australian experience is anything to go by, that number is likely to rocket. What does the Minister say to that?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Taking every possible effective measure to stop children smoking is the mark of a sensible state, not a nanny state. I do not think any Member of the House would want any extra child to take up smoking, so every Government should look clearly at any effective policy that can serve to advance the achievement of our ends in that regard. Sir Cyril devotes a significant chapter in his report to illicit tobacco products, and I urge my hon. Friend to read it. Of the arguments in that area, Sir Cyril says, “I am not convinced”.

Children and Families Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a point that I am seeking to make in my contribution: we have an opportunity to do something, so I hope that Members will support the Lords amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Bronchitis, asthma, meningitis, glue ear, the common cold and reduced lung function are just some of the many respiratory illnesses that can be suffered by children as a result of passive smoking.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

If smoking is so damaging to children’s health, surely the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument is that we should ban smoking in people’s homes.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will talk later about the toxicity of smoke in an enclosed vehicle, because many studies have shown that children are susceptible to passive smoke in the back of a car in a way that they are not in a building or in the home.

Each year around 300,000 GP appointments are attended as a direct result of children suffering from illnesses linked to passive smoking, 10,000 have to be admitted to hospital and, according to a 2010 report by the Royal College of Physicians, roughly 40 families lose infants to sudden cot deaths. If the health and tragic human costs were not justification enough, it is estimated that treating children for the effects of passive smoking costs our NHS some £23 million every single year.

Tobacco Products (Plain Packaging)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This august debating Chamber has probably never been so full at 9.30 on a Tuesday morning; the number of hon. Members wishing to speak shows how much interest there is in this topic. I will try to keep my remarks brief, as per your direction, because I know how many people want to contribute.

I wish to cover a particular set of issues, as I am sure others do. The key issue is standardisation of tobacco products and cigarettes, rather than just plain packaging, and I will emphasise that throughout my speech. I am delighted that there are so many Members here from across parties, all of whom I trust are here to participate in this debate. The issue transcends party lines. It should not be a party political matter.

I was delighted in April 2012 when the Government decided to consult on standardising cigarette packaging. However, I was disappointed when they then decided, in July this year, that they would not implement plain packaging and standardisation until the emerging impact of the decision in Australia can be measured.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government consulted extensively. Some 665,000 people responded to that consultation, of whom 64% opposed what he is advocating.

[Bob Blackman]

It was not a referendum or a vote; it was a consultation. It is the power of the arguments that matters in a consultation, rather than necessarily the volume, particularly when the arguments are organised by a lobby such as Philip Morris.

I declare my interest as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. In common with my colleagues, I think that there is no good reason for delaying the implementation of standardised packaging, for child protection and health reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. In Australia, we have seen immediately that standard packs, which are often described as plain, are anything but. Colleagues in the House and members of the public have been confused into thinking that standard packs would be grey or white, with no markings at all. That impression has been deliberately fostered by the tobacco industry—for example, by Japan Tobacco in its grossly misleading newspaper adverts, which were rightly condemned by the Advertising Standards Authority. In fact, as in Australia, standard packs would be highly designed, with images of the likely health effects of smoking. No wonder the industry is determined to stop such packaging.

The evidence we already have amounts to a strong enough reason for action now. Are there any arguments against that? There are certainly a number of myths, endlessly repeated by the tobacco industry and its front groups. High on that list is the argument that standardised packs will increase the level of the illicit trade, as has been mentioned. That is fiction. In fact, data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show clearly that the illicit trade in cigarettes fell from around one in five consumed in the UK in 2000 to fewer than one in 10 by 2010-11. That represents a great success for HMRC and the Government as a whole, partly as a result of the sensible decision by the Government to protect the funding for that area of HMRC’s work in the previous spending round.

People may ask whether standardised packaging would reverse that welcome trend, but there is no good reason to believe so. I invite any hon. Member who does to consider this fact: the three key security features on a pack of cigarettes are the numerical coding system printed at the bottom of the pack, which will continue; a covert anti-counterfeit mark in the middle of the pack, which can be read by a hand-held scanner and would also remain; and some features of cigarette design, in particular the distinctive marks on filter papers, which would continue. All those features would continue with standard packs.

Andy Leggett, the deputy director for tobacco and alcohol strategy at HMRC, said that

“there is no evidence that that risk”—

of an increase in the illicit trade—

“would materialise to any significant degree.”

His opinion was shared by serving police officers, senior trading standards officers and a representative of the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF, when they gave evidence to the inquiry on the illicit trade conducted by the all-party group on smoking and health, of which I am secretary.

Standardised packaging is not a party political issue. It is strongly supported by politicians of all parties, many of whom are present for this debate. It is also popular with the public. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, a February 2013 poll on the issue found that, overall, 64% of adults in Great Britain were in favour of standardised packaging—great public support.

A further poll by YouGov, conducted in March, showed support for the policy from 62% of Conservative supporters, 63% of Labour supporters and 60% of Liberal Democrats. There was majority support from all ages, genders, classes and political parties. Were there a free vote in the House of Commons, I believe that a significant majority of MPs would support legislation on standardised packs. I also firmly believe that Parliament should debate and decide the matter.

I remember, before I was elected, the 2006 debate on smoke-free public places, support for which was passed by a majority of more than 200. That piece of legislation has proven to be highly successful and popular, enabling people to enjoy restaurants, pubs and other facilities without having to endure smoke. That legislation was achieved in part because it was seen to be beyond conventional party politics. I strongly urge the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce a debate in the main Chamber so that we can discuss it and take a decision, with a vote, on standardised packs.

To sum up, fundamentally the issue is simple: smoking tobacco is a lethal addiction. Cigarettes are the only legal product sold in the UK that kills consumers when used exactly as the manufacturer intends. Why should any company be allowed to promote such a product through advertising and marketing? The tobacco industry has made a great fuss about its intellectual property rights, but why should we allow any such claimed rights to trump the requirements of child protection and public health? The nub of the debate is that children, and the most vulnerable groups of children in particular, need protection from the tobacco industry and its never ending search for new consumers.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend has been most generous in giving way. He obviously feels passionately, as I feel passionately in the other direction. As a traditional Tory, I believe in a free society: people are warned of the dangers and should be allowed to make their own decisions. Given the passion with which my hon. Friend has argued his case and given his connection with the all-party group, is he really in favour of having tobacco banned altogether in this country? Surely that is the logic of his argument.

[Bob Blackman]

I do not agree with banning tobacco completely. If people want to put a cigarette in their mouth, light it and kill themselves, they make that choice as conscious adults. My concern is for young children who begin smoking before they realise the dangers; they then cannot quit, because they are addicted. The tobacco industry’s aim in its packaging is to encourage more people to start.

Tobacco packaging should be made as unattractive as possible. It should never again be used to try to recruit new addicts and new victims, particularly among the young. Standardised packaging is an inevitable and welcome step forward in tobacco control. I predict that it will come sooner or later, and on this side of the argument, the sooner the better. If not now, when? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister making the Government’s position clear so that we know what it is. If they then refuse to introduce a debate in the House, we will.