Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has done remarkably good work on vaccine-damaged people. I co-chair his all-party parliamentary group’s sister group, the APPG on pandemic response and recovery, which has allowed me to see that we have a whole body of expert opinion before us. Medics, lawyers, experts in childcare and a whole range of politicians have come to very different views on what the right response to covid was and, in some cases, on both the law and the science itself.

Before I go any further, let me say that my experience of the APPG, and of climate change or global warming debates, is that science and politics make very uneasy bedfellows. There is often an attempt in a political debate to resolve matters that are only resolvable by looking at the evidence, doing more experiments and finding out the truth of the matter, which is not always possible in a debate where people feel very strongly about things.

I want to talk about something we have not really talked about so far: the disease itself. People have different views about the damage done by covid. Some people think it is harmless and just another flu, whereas some treat it as though it were the plague. It is neither. It was a nasty disease for some people who got it, but its major characteristic was the profile of people who were killed or made ill by it. It affected older people much more severely. I think the median age of those who died was 82 for men and 84 for women, so it was a disease of the elderly. Those below 50 were relatively safe—some died, but not many. That was known at the beginning of the epidemic.

This comes back to the point about politics, and the protection of Government politicians, being more important than looking at the science. A rational response to a disease with the profile of covid-19 would have been to put a cordon sanitaire around those people who were vulnerable because of their age or because they had other diseases, such as lung diseases, and to let the rest of us go about our business and take the risk, as we do every year with seasonal flu, but the Government did the opposite. They locked everybody up and sent untested people back from hospital into care homes, where they infected other people, which led to a spike in deaths.

At the same time, the Government were telling us that they were following the science. I have a scientific background—it is not in biology, but I have a degree in chemistry—and I believe in following the science and finding out exactly what is going on. The science was not followed, and not only because the response did not follow the natural profile of the disease. In their early statements, people from the NHS, and both Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, said that masks were a complete waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective because there would be a peak six months later that would probably be worse than if we had not locked down. That advice changed very quickly, I believe under political pressure. Again, I think that was a mistake.

One country that did follow the science, Sweden, made mistakes—it made the same mistake that we made by sending infected people back into care homes—but it did not lock down and it did not restrict people’s freedom, or it did so in only a moderate way. It came out as about the best of comparable countries in Europe in terms of deaths.

Another consequence, which we see in every debate in this House, is that there is no money left. We spent £400 billion on covid, a lot of it wasted. We can read National Audit Office reports on the test and trace system, which was money almost totally wasted. There is also the money given to people who could quite easily have gone about their jobs. The businesses needed the money, given the decisions that the Government had taken, but the Government should not have taken those decisions.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some of his comments are more relevant in hindsight than they might have been at the time? In March 2020, it was difficult to predict the path of the disease. We had seen pictures from around the world of hospital A&E departments overwhelmed by those turning up with respiratory problems, and Governments, not only here but around the world, had to respond to that. In hindsight, of course, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is accurate, but at the time we had to react in the way that we felt would protect the highest number of people and protect A&E departments from being overwhelmed. That required us to act quickly. Perhaps mistakes were made, but they are mistakes in hindsight.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a point. In March, when the first decisions were made, nobody knew what was going to happen. There was a panic to go into lockdown, which was understandable while people were seeing what was going on, but very soon after that people did know. What I think was, and is, indefensible was to carry on with policies that we knew were damaging the economy and were not protecting people. I therefore voted against my own party, which supported the Government and more on this issue. I went through the Lobby with a small number of colleagues from my party and the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that what was happening was wrong, and that the damage being done by the policies was probably worse than covid. It might be hindsight for March and April 2020, but not for the rest of the time and the second lockdown.

Once we knew the profile of the disease, we knew that we were damaging children. I go into schools and meet eight and nine-year-olds who were locked down when it was known that children were not at risk. A very small number of children died and, as far as I know, they all had comorbidities—I stand to be corrected—so covid was essentially safe for children. We have damaged both their mental health and their ability to learn. I go into schools from time to time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, and teachers tell me that it is very difficult to catch up. I am still annoyed about the response, and I do not think it is hindsight.

I went through the Lobby with a minority of colleagues. One of the two failures of our democracy’s normal checks and balances was that this place was not functioning, as the Easter holiday was extended. Surely the most important thing in a crisis is for our democratic institutions to function properly. We could not ask proper questions and there were no follow-ups. We kept our Select Committee going but, with the best will in the world, it was a pale imitation of what had gone before. There was a complete failure to insist on more accountability from the Government while the economy was shut down. Some of us, although we were not very many, came here to try to keep it going.

Our democracy’s second important check and balance is the fourth estate. These publications are not normally my politics but, with the exception of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the Daily Mail to a certain extent, the rest of the media, led by the BBC, were quite uncritical of what was happening. People say that BBC reporters were told not to criticise and not to ask difficult questions, and political journalists—not specialist health journalists who might have asked more pertinent questions—were sent to the press conferences. It was a political question, but it was also a science and health question. We were really let down by the BBC primarily, and by other parts of the media.

The hon. Member for Christchurch and other hon. Members have talked about the Hallett inquiry. I supported the inquiry but, having seen the way it has gone, I have given myself a good talking to. I do not think I will ever again support an inquiry. Do we really want to spend half a billion pounds on this inquiry? I attended the previous debate on recompense, and we heard how lawyers are getting fat on all these inquiries. I do not know when the Hallett inquiry will report, but it may well last for years and cost half a billion pounds. It certainly will not provide us with any advice on what to do if there is a pandemic next year—I suspect that advice is what we all want. By the time it reports, there may have been another Government or two and it will be a historical document. Sweden is not a perfect society, but its inquiry has reported. The motion before us calls for the fourth part of the inquiry, which will be on vaccines, but is the inquiry really the technical body to do that? I do not think so.

In the first stage, the inquiry has shown an extraordinary bias towards believing in lockdowns. I would want to know a number of things from an inquiry: did the lockdowns work? Did they save lives? Have they cost lives? Where did the virus come from? The inquiry is not even looking at that and it is not dealing with any of those things, but it is taking a long time. It has made it abundantly clear that it is going to look at the impact of the virus on social divisions and poverty. I am a member of the Labour party and I can tell the inquiry, because I know, that poor people come off worse from diseases. It can go back to look at the Black report from 1981, I believe it was, if it wants to see that, as it talks about both regional and class disparities. We do not need to look at this issue, as we know that poor people do badly when there are epidemics—that has been true for all time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent point. Given our experience of inquiries, be it the current covid inquiry or the ongoing Post Office Horizon inquiry, is it any surprise that even the sub-postmasters have come to the conclusion that there is no justice in these inquiries and they are now considering bringing private criminal prosecutions to get their own justice?

[Graham Stringer]

No, I am not surprised about that. Inquiries take a long time and their reports and recommendations often gather dust. I have never made this point before, and I hope I am not going off-piste too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but every time there is an horrific murder of a child we get a report with 90-odd recommendations, and the question is: does that protect the next child? No, it does not. I do not believe that these inquiries do. We need serious cultural change in many of these organisations, rather than another report on something. That is an easy thing to say and a very difficult thing to achieve.

Let me come on to the other part of the debate, which is about excess deaths and the number of deaths. It appears that just over 200,000 people were killed in this country by, or died of, covid. I had my doubts about these figures from the beginning. On a number of occasions, right from the start of covid, the Science and Technology Committee heard from statisticians. We had Sir Ian Diamond and Professor Spiegelhalter in to talk to us about the statistics. We heard from people from what is now the UK Health Security Agency but was then a named part of the NHS. We asked them whether they had the statistics on the difference between people who died from covid and those who died with it. If someone was dying of cancer and went into hospital, there was a fair chance that they would have got covid, because there was not perfect protection within hospitals. Such a person would then be registered as having been a covid death, but clearly they were going to die of cancer. From the very beginning, that obscured the statistics.

[Dr Mullan]

A number of statistics were used to profile the causes of death during the pandemic, but ultimately the most reliable statistics come from the death certificates, where a clinician has to make a judgment about whether something was a cause or an association. Those figures are reliable, and they match and mirror the other figures. So we have to be careful about disparaging the statistics that were used to monitor the profile of the pandemic over time in the rapid way we needed and the more authoritative and credible figures that do demonstrate quite a close match and help in genuinely understanding who did and did not die from covid.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I happen to know that in some local authorities, instructions went out to the people who were registering deaths essentially to say, “If there is a cough involved in this, we want it down as covid.” There was a different process because the health service was not working under normal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct me, I am happy to allow him to do so.

[Dr Mullan]

To come to that conclusion, one has to say that individual clinicians joined in a conspiracy to lie about what was on a death certificate. We can cast these aspersions, but someone has to fill that certificate in and I do not accept that individual doctors deliberately misled with what was on someone’s death certificate—that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

[Graham Stringer]

I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that at that time, when it was difficult to examine people because there was a distance between clinicians and the people who had suffered death, there was a temptation and a view that covid should go on the death certificates. I suggest no conspiracy, though. I do not believe in conspiracies.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn eventually in the UK and around the world. It was withdrawn because of the rarest of blood clots on the brain. It was not put down on any death certificates in the UK by doctors until after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency admitted, due to international pressure, that there was that risk. After that, the death certificates started to appear with vaccine-related harms. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that was because doctors were intimidated by the idea that their reputations would be smeared for putting anything down as a vaccine harm or by having the GMC on their back.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do believe that, from time to time, one gets a view, both in professions and outside professions, that pushes judgments in one particular direction. I believe there is one point on which we can reach a consensus in the debate: Government Ministers said that the vaccines were 100% safe—it was particularly egregious when that was said about children— but no vaccine or treatment, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, is 100% safe. I think it was a mistake to say those things.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, serious point. Ministers here and in other countries knew that when they set up the global vaccines study. For those who want to know about this afterwards—not during the debate—BMJ article reference 2024;384:q488 looks at some rare side effects and acknowledges some of the other side effects. But those who start saying we should not have had the vaccines are wrong, and those who think that anyone believes any treatment is completely safe are wrong as well.

[Graham Stringer]

I am not familiar with that particular paper, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ever 100% safe and vaccines have an overall benefit. I am vaccinated against covid, as I have been vaccinated against many things over my lifetime. Vaccines have made the health of this country, and countries around the world that can afford vaccines, much better over many years.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Further to that, may I suggest that this should not be binary? We do not acknowledge that some people have clearly had severely negative side effects from the covid vaccine. That should be acknowledged and there should be compensation and support, without completely throwing out the whole vaccine programme.

[Graham Stringer]

Of course.

I want to move on to excess deaths over the last couple of years, since covid, and the figures during covid. One of the ways of measuring the impact of covid was looking at excess deaths during covid. They were measured against a five-year average—that was the gold standard; it is the way it has been done—and that gave quite large figures. That is interesting given what has happened when the excess 100,000 deaths per year over the past two years have been looked at. The Office for National Statistics has moved away from that basis and on to a different one, and the figures are coming down.

We need an anonymised account of those excess deaths—this was part of a recent Westminster Hall debate—because that will help us to understand what is going on. The pharmaceutical companies have been given that information, but Ministers just give reassuring statements that there is no evidence that excess deaths are caused by the covid vaccinations—by the mRNA vaccinations. How do they know? They do not tell us that. We need to know, first, how they have come to that conclusion and, secondly, if that is a fair, reasoned and balanced conclusion. We also need a detailed look at the anonymised statistics, so that we can ask further questions about the problems that are worrying us—that certainly worry me—and so that we can make better decisions in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

12. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of infrastructure on levels of business investment.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

13. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of infrastructure on levels of business investment.

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

High-quality infrastructure is crucial for delivering economic growth. To quote a previous Prime Minister:

“You and I come by road and rail, but economists travel on infrastructure.”

We know how important investment is. The whole House will agree that the UK is the leading light when it comes to offshore wind farms, where we are already securing investment.

Let me point to a few examples of further investment: Nissan is investing £2 billion in new electric car models in the UK, Microsoft and Google have announced data centres worth over £3 billion, and my Secretary of State oversaw the global investment summit, unlocking £30 billion of investment. In fact, since 2010 we have secured more inward investment than any other country in Europe. Over the last few years, we have received the third highest amount in the world, after the United States and China. I could go on, Mr Speaker, but I might test your patience.

[Ms Ghani]

As the Minister for the auto sector, I am very keen to ensure that we are breaking bad memes around the electric vehicle sector. We are doing a huge amount of work in this space. At the moment, we have 53,600 public charge points. We have a rapid charging fund and a local electric vehicle infrastructure fund— I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority will want to tap into those. The Department for Transport is working with local authorities to ensure that they have charging strategies. We have a £381 million local EV infrastructure fund, which will deliver tens of thousands more charging points and support for on-street residential charge points, too. It is really important that local authorities are aware of the funds available, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman get in touch with the DFT to support the installation of charging points in his constituency.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Member could disagree in general terms with the Minister’s reply. It would have been a more interesting reply if she had made an assessment of the reduction in investment since the cancellation of High Speed 2, because there is no doubt, as she said, that investment in rail infrastructure leads to business investment all along the route. We can see that in Birmingham and Manchester, and we can now see the lack of new investment because of the cancellation. Was it not a mistake to swap that investment, which would have led to many new high-technology jobs, for money to replace what has been taken from local government to fill potholes?

[Ms Ghani]

In my previous response, I wanted to expose the opportunities and grants that are available to ensure that charging points are criss-crossing the country. Often parliamentarians are not aware of all the great work we are doing.

On HS2, just last week we announced the extra support that will be made available for local transport plans, which cover everything including rail, road and even buses and, of course, potholes. Network Rail has received £36 billion from the Government to improve transport in every region of the UK. Just last week, we announced an extra £4.7 billion of additional funding for local transport authorities in the north and midlands. We want to make sure that decisions on transport are made locally and that the infrastructure is needed and wanted by local communities, which is why we are making sure that the funds from HS2 are being made available.

LGBT History Month

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I agree with the hon. Lady and my co-chair of the APPG. She is absolutely right and I think it demonstrates that, sadly, no matter how much engagement and how much compromise is made, there will be those who are not interested in banning such practices. They do not see a ban as necessary; in fact, they are against it because they believe it will infringe on certain rights. I do not believe that argument for one minute. The only thing that banning conversion practices achieves is to stop people being subjected to harm—harm that is still legal here in the United Kingdom. That is why we have to continue with progress towards a ban.

There have been so many promises since the proposal was first made by the LGBT action plan in 2018 and yet, we have still not had sight of a Bill. We are often told it is complicated. No one is saying it is not, but we delivered Brexit faster than this and I argue that that was slightly more complex. Also, we are not working from a blank slate; there are many other examples from around the world where this kind of legislation has been successfully enacted and has not had the chilling effect that we are often warned about in terms of infringements on the freedom of speech and the rights of women, for example. That just simply has not happened in any example that I have looked at globally where such a ban has already been passed.

We have had ample time to bring forward a Bill. It has been promised in two Queen’s Speeches and at the Dispatch Box and yet there always seems to be a new reason to delay. The latest is that we are now waiting for the outcome of Dr Cass’s review into child and adolescent healthcare when it comes to treating people who are trans. However, Dr Cass has explicitly stated that her work should not be used as an excuse to delay passing a ban, and I argue that we must not delay any longer. We cannot go into an election without passing such a ban because it would represent a huge breach of trust. I feel slightly unfair targeting the Minister with this, because I know how supportive he is on this issue, but I sincerely hope he can pass the message back to those who might be less so to urge them to get on with it.

I worry that this issue has become part of a wider targeting of the LGBT+ community, particularly the trans community, on which there is an increasing focus, alongside the erosion of protections in law. I worry that this is not just the beginning; I am very concerned, as I am sure many of us are, that the targeting of LGBT+ people and the attempt to erode their rights is the first step on a journey to erode many of our hard-fought rights, not just for LGBT+ people, but for many people across the UK. We are seen as a convenient battering ram at the moment.

I hope that we can come together to continue to fight the erosion of our rights. It is a fight that LGBT+ people did not ask for, and we want no part in. I hope that, in this election year, parties can commit to not using these issues as wedge issues, and that they can instead focus on the issues that actually matter to people. Otherwise, I fear that once the election has come and gone, we will be back here again asking for the same thing. As much as I love seeing the Minister and spending time with him, maybe we can cross out this date in our diary for next year. I would like us to make some progress so that we do not need to bother him again, and repeat ourselves.

I end on a happy note: I hope that everyone had a happy LGBT+ History Month.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members who wish to speak should stand to indicate that wish, in the usual manner. I call Dame Angela Eagle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I certainly agree.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we are not pushed for time this afternoon. Interventions should be short and to the point.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is a great luxury not to be pushed for time these days in the House and, Mr Stringer, you tempt me; but let us see how we get on.

I particularly welcomed the Mayor of London’s announcement about the renaming of the overland train lines after what I think are progressive causes, one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) just mentioned, and a pretty fantastic football team—even if they have to keep proving themselves over and over again.

As I was saying, this is a time to remember the past but also to be clear-eyed about some of the potential problems that face us, as a global LGBT community as well as a community in this country. This debate gives us a chance to do that. LGBT+ History Month 2024 celebrated the community contributions to medicine and healthcare, as my hon. Friend said in her intervention. It also highlighted the community’s blighted history in getting access to healthcare, as well as the ignorance, prejudice and inequality that came about as the AIDS pandemic—which is a pandemic and has killed millions of people—raged around the world. All that we got was prejudice and ignorance, and the only thing that helped to make any progress in those grim times was the self- help that the community came together to provide in very many inspirational ways.

Hopefully, we are in more enlightened times now, although I have to say that I have heard similar arguments about the threat that LGBT people present resurfacing again in political discourse. It happens more abroad than here, but it rears its ugly head on occasion here, too. That is an alarm bell that we should all be listening to. We should all be ready to fight because, as my hon. Friend said, a battle for equal rights and equality in the law or for equal access to goods and services, and being able to live a life that is not blighted by prejudice, ignorance or the fact that one is a particular thing—be it black, Asian and minority ethnic, be it a member of a particular faith, or be it LGBT—is all really important. When we fight together to improve the prospects of everyone who might be subjected to discrimination, we create a better, fairer and more equal society in which people’s human rights are properly recognised and prejudice is pushed to the sides.

LGBT History Month is really all about remembering. It is also, I think, about teaching some of the younger members of our community, who breeze through life, never had to be in the closet and have never been subjected to the quite extraordinary vitriol that used to be a regular feature of the media in the 1980s. They do not really understand how far we have come and what gains had to be fought for and made. They take it all for granted, which is fantastic—I hope that they can continue to take it for granted—but I always think that if we do not know our history, there is an increased chance that we will have to repeat it.

It is, then, an important time to reflect on the huge legislative progress that we have made in campaigning for our rights and against prejudice—the kind of progress that I thought was probably unimaginable when I was marching against section 28 in the 1980s. Some of us are old enough to remember Margaret Thatcher’s conference speech in 1987. I used to watch all the conferences, including the TUC’s—they were all televised, constantly, at the time. I was a bit of a junkie when it came to seeing what was happening, and I remember watching the speech in which she declaimed that children were being

“cheated of a sound start in life”

due to the fact that they were

“taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.”

It is not about a right to be gay; it is about being what you are and being able to live a life that is authentic to what you are, not having to hide away or be berated for who you are, and not being frightened to walk the streets.

Some of us who are old enough do remember the prejudice-laden tabloid coverage and the bullying that that involved, as well as the weaponisation of prejudice for electoral purposes that led to the enactment of section 28, which made the lives of LGBT+ pupils and teachers in schools a misery for generations. Gradually, though, in the face of often open media hostility, the last Labour Government changed all that in a series of landmark changes to the legal statutes that created circumstances in which, largely, LGBT+ people got their equal rights in law.

Many of those changes were hard fought for, including the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which reduced the age of consent for gay and bisexual men to 16. We had to put that legislation through Parliament three times and use the Parliament Act to get it on to the statute book, because the Lords simply would not pass it. Because we persisted with it, we were then accused on the front pages of the tabloids of being obsessed with buggery. Everything is created to make it look like you are the obsessive—the one who is trying always to go on about these things. There is no understanding that, actually, this is just a basic equality requirement that has to be there in law, otherwise that person will be discriminated against, regarded differently and treated differently. The world has not come to an end since we equalised the age of consent, despite some of the warnings, but it really had to be pushed.

Similarly, many here will remember the 2003 repeal of section 28, which talked about “pretended” family relationships and ridiculed LGBT people and their relationships and commitments to each other at a time when people could not get married or do any of the legal things that are available now. That legislation took us three years of persistence to finally repeal because the Lords would not pass it. Every time we were nearly losing our local government Bills, which had increasingly important things in them, we had to keep leaving the change out and putting it in again. It took three years to get that sorted out.

The landmark Gender Recognition Act 2004 enabled transgender adults to achieve legal recognition in their acquired gender. That was because of important international court judgments that basically said they had a right to that. I suspect that the fact that the Gender Recognition Act has been on the statute book for 20 years has passed by quite a lot of people who have suddenly discovered that they are worried by transgender people. The fact is that transgender people were not really visible at all until after the Act was passed. It is an example of how our society gets kinder and more equal if people feel that they can present as they really are. That is what transgender people have been doing since then, until, for various reasons, that has become problematised in the last few years.

As well as that Act being put on the statute book, we had the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which established a new legal relationship for same-sex couples. Some people say that that was then upgraded, but I do not because I still have a civil partnership. I have not got married yet, partially because the Catholic Church does not recognise same-sex marriages and my partner will not do it anywhere else. It is important that we have recognised that civil partnerships can also apply to heterosexual people, because many worry about the baggage that comes with the chattelisation of women in a marriage. I know many feminists who felt that way, and are more than happy to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage in that sense. We are creating circumstances in society in which people’s loving relationships can be recognised, validated and made sound in law so that there is not a problem if somebody dies, is ill or needs to have an official connection as next of kin. That is really important.

The Equality Act 2010 included sexual orientation and gender reassignment as two of the nine protected characteristics. I think it is a pretty good Act. I know that various people have problems with it at the moment, but I think it is a well-balanced piece of legislation that does not need change. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legalised same-sex marriages at a time when the party of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington realised that it had got a bit left behind and that it ought to come into the modern world. The vast majority of them are still there, but not all of them, it seems, as we saw last Friday.

All that change was thanks to having a progressive majority Labour Government in the 1997 to 2010 period. We passed progressive legislation that made people’s lives easier and demonstrated that their relationships, their loves and what they did in their lives was properly respected. However, the progress has not been linear—progress very rarely is—and the community faces threats now that are reminiscent of what I hoped we had left behind in the 1980s. For four consecutive years, between 2015 and 2019, Britain was ranked the best place to be LGBTQ+ in Europe, in the Rainbow Europe index, but we are now 17th. There has been a cocktail of anti-LGBT hate crime on the streets, and anti-LGBT diatribes have featured increasingly in the media and some political discourse. Some members of the Government are trying to use that for their own purposes, when it comes to modernising and reform. I am not pointing the finger at anyone in this Chamber, because I know we are among friends, but there are some issues.

Police-recorded hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation is up 112% in the past five years, and against trans people it is up 186%. In Merseyside, where my constituency of Wallasey is, reported hate crime based on sexual orientation is up 162%, and against trans people it is up 1,033%. So let nobody say that the problematising of LGBT people, particularly trans people, does not have consequences on the street, because it does and they are often very brutal.

We need to try to marginalise the people who think that a divisive war on woke is the way they can win the next election, shore up the blue wall or do any of the things they think they are doing by problematising trans people in particular and painting them as a threat. They think what happens on social media is real, and that those provocations are anything other than that—they are often generated by bots and agents provocateurs outside our country in order to divide us. It is called hybrid war, and it is not something we should indulge in.

I am disappointed—I hope the Minister might be able to cheer me up—that the Conservative Government dropped their LGBT+ action plan and dismissed their LGBT+ advisory board. Having such voices at the centre of where policy is made is always very important. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), has not seen any LGBT+ organisations except those that are gender critical in any of the meetings she has had when she has been formulating Government policy. That is, to say the least, regrettable.

The problems around modernising the Gender Recognition Act and the manifesto promise to ban the abusive practices of conversion therapy need not have happened, but we are where we are and we have to find a way through. There has been an authoritarian far-right backlash evident across the world, encompassing President Putin all the way to Steve Bannon, Trump’s guru, and a lot in between. We need to see what is going on globally and connect it to how the trans issue has been used as a wedge issue in order to take the “T” out of LGBT and destroy progress in this area.

Just last week hon. Members were lining up to stop a very mild private Member’s Bill. It was so mild that I wanted it to be toughened up considerably, were it ever to reach Committee stage. But we could not even get it there, nor would the Government even allow opinions on it, despite the sponsor bending over backwards to try to create a situation where the Bill could get to Committee. We have had Members of Parliament talk about LGB people, erasing the “T”, and equating conversion practices with families having a normal conversation about their children growing up and exploring ideas about themselves and their identity. That is not what conversion practice is. It is easy to recognise torture and abuse when we see it. Torture and abuse is definitely not a conversation.

This year, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, there will be a general election. Labour will offer the country the chance to pick up on legislating to protect the LBGT community with a comprehensive, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy. I would have liked to get it done sooner, but it will happen. We just have to make progress. It is very sad that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, it has taken longer than the Brexit negotiations. That should make us stop and think about what has been going on. We will also strengthen the law so that anti-LGBT+ hate crimes are treated as aggravated offences, and there will be a much-needed modernisation of gender recognition processes, which are humiliating and overlong.

Progress on LGBT rights around the world was summed up very well by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. There are still 67 countries that criminalise homosexuality, 51 that restrict freedom of sexual and gender expression and 11 that apply the death penalty for same-sex offences. Uganda and Ghana have passed the two most recent pieces of anti-LGBT legislation that feature capital punishment. Just last week, Ghana passed its Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill unanimously. Even thinking about the title, there are a whole load of assumptions in there that are interesting to say the least.

That Bill criminalises being gay, prohibits adoption for gay people and forcibly disbands all LGBT associations. For same-sex intercourse, one is likely to be jailed for up to three years. For producing, procuring or distributing material deemed to be promoting LBGT activities, it is six to 10 years. For teaching children about LGBT activities, it is also six to 10 years. Just yesterday, on Ghana’s independence day, LGBT+ protestors demonstrated in solidarity outside Ghana’s high commission against this appalling Bill.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act passed last year. It includes the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”—whatever that is—life imprisonment for the offence of homosexuality and up to 20 years in jail for promoting homosexuality. A report was compiled late last year by the Strategic Response Team, which is a coalition of Ugandan LGBT+ rights organisations, which have been criminalised for even existing in their own country and have to operate in very difficult circumstances. They found that between May, when the Act became law, and September there had been 180 cases of evictions, 176 cases of torture, abuse and degrading treatment, and 159 incidents of discrimination.

All of those were against both real and perceived LGBT+ people. We have to remember that just because something is anti-LGBT+ legislation, it does not mean the people caught by it are necessarily LGBT+. They are marginalised or focused on for whatever reason the authorities feel that they wish to focus on them. We have heard that the first person arrested who faces capital punishment under the law was not even gay. They were homeless, and they were arrested for being shirtless, which was because they were poor, and they were charged under the legislation. The Ugandan authorities are using the law to brutally criminalise the LGBT+ community, but also to go for any marginalised groups they want to attack. It is one of those catch-all things that they can put people in jail for. As is often the case, an attack on one minority is only ever the beginning of attacks on many others.

On our own European shores, over a fifth of countries lack broad protections for LGBT+ people—again, mentioned by my friend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Discussions in schools on LGBT+ issues are outlawed in Russia, as is being LGBT+, and in Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia. In Poland, nearly 100 municipalities have self-declared as LGBT-free zones. I hope that President Tusk, who—thank goodness—has just been elected in Poland, can start to undo some of the damage done in this area by the previous long-standing regime.

Across the Atlantic, the American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 474 anti-LGBTQ Bills in state legislatures across the country. That was the number as of yesterday, but it is probably out of date already because several get promulgated every day. Florida’s so-called “Don’t say gay” law bans discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity in schools for children under 10—that is their very own section 28. That is being exported by American Christian groups, which ploughed more than $280 million into campaigning against LGBT+ rights and abortion rights worldwide between 2007 and 2020, targeting communities and Parliaments around the world with their well-funded and co-ordinated doctrine of hate.

The legislation in Uganda and Ghana is peculiarly similar because it was drafted in that context. That does not arise spontaneously; it is well organised, and it has to be fought. Britain, as a country that respects international human rights and has better standards on that, ought to be financing some of the battles to prevent the spread of that pernicious and damaging ideology.

Britain has to get back on the international stage to advance LGBT rights across the globe and has to support those campaigning to change those unacceptable laws at home. I know that the international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is very aware of that, and we as an APPG have been to see him about it. It would be interesting if the Minister said a bit about whether there is funding to help to support a battle against those worrying developments on the African continent.

We have made progress, stalled and progressed again, and are going forwards and backwards in a non-linear way. There are challenges ahead, but we have to redouble our efforts not only to be proud of who we are and proud of our communities, but to try to create a circumstance where once more Britain leads the world in LGBT+ rights.

Excess Death Trends

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is a medical doctor, so he clearly has some knowledge. Correlation is not causation, but it is an alarm bell. Alarm bells are going off all over the building, but no one wants to open the door to see whether there is a fire.

Future generations will ridicule us for what we have done in response to a seasonal airborne virus. We have apparently lost our collective minds. We have imposed a brand-new type of quarantine on a healthy population, in breach of all previous public health advice and our own carefully crafted expert pandemic plan, and in flagrant breach of the sensible and experienced advice of many professionals.

The noble dissenters are inevitably being vindicated, one by one, as the suppressed, shaming, real-world evidence finally emerges. I will not mention those who harass, discredit and ridicule the dissenters; they loudly parade their egotistical virtue on social media, in the press and on television. I know exactly how harassment feels.

We inflicted social distancing, masking and school closures on healthy children who were at no risk from the virus. We did that to protect adults, at the expense of our children’s social and mental health. People raised the alarm, but nobody listened. A society that consciously and knowingly sacrifices perfectly healthy children for adults is sick. This time will not be looked on well by future generations. That will be our legacy, and I call on this House and those in authority to right that grievous wrong quickly. With unbearable cruelty, we isolated even those who would gladly have made the individual choice to see their grandchildren.

Worst of all, we bypassed the procedures, protocols and science to inflict on a healthy population a brand new and untested product that had never before been used outside clinical trials, never mind approved. There was no long-term safety data. The safety analysis in the trials was eight weeks, and then the control group was vaccinated. There was no age stratification for recipients of an experimental medication for an illness with an average mortality age of 82. There was no liability under any circumstances for the manufacturers of those experimental treatments. Furthermore, there were good reasons, based on the science known at the time, for thinking that those products might be harmful. Rather than ridicule us, future generations may come to loathe us. We will forever be the poster boys and girls of a society that collectively lost its mind and its moral compass. They will hang that millstone around our necks for eternity.

What is the flaw in human nature that latches on to things and destroys all before it? It has been dubbed by some as the madness of crowds or a kind of mass formation psychosis. It is the sort of thing that allowed China to commit population Armageddon with the one-child policy for decades. It is the sort of thing that allowed us to slaughter millions of cattle during the apparent foot and mouth outbreak, when we were persuaded not by the science but by the plausible patter of provable idiots such as Professor Neil Ferguson—yes, the very same. His advice led to the bankruptcy, immiseration and utter despair of countless farmers who were forced to destroy their livelihoods in a futile attempt to prevent the spread of an airborne virus, which had already managed to pass in the air all the way from France to the Isle of Wight. How many times must the so-called experts be caught with their pants down as their models fail yet again? How long must we be subjected to debunked drivel dumped in our political discourse? How long must decision makers deal with discredited modelling and moribund and captured institutions? Why will no one listen to reason when they have been proved wrong so many times?

There are many other examples in medicine, from bloodletting with leeches to pointless lobotomies to not washing hands between the mortuary and the labour ward. Doctors and scientists are far from immune from groupthink, and the current batch are living proof.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

This will not be the first, or I suspect the last, Government in history not to follow the evidence when it comes to difficult issues. When Governments make mistakes, protect themselves and do not look at the evidence, we as a democratic society should expect there to be an inquiry that establishes what happened, what should have happened and what should happen in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inquiry that we set up is failing to do that job, and is assuming that lockdown was right from the beginning?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I agree wholeheartedly. This is not a political issue; it is a public health issue that affects every constituency. The so-called covid inquiry has already set out the answers it wants to get. It has all the appearance of a whitewash. It was deeply disappointing that it announced this week that the module on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines has been put off indefinitely—certainly until after the general election, which is extremely disappointing.

I contacted every public and media body I could think of in 2014 to tell them again and again that the sub-postmasters were innocent, but no one listened. I knew the sub-postmasters in my constituency were completely honest; anybody who knew those pillars of society knew it. The innocent were falsely accused of dishonesty over the Horizon scandal and were relentlessly pursued by a merciless, mendacious and malicious bureaucracy. It is the coldness that shocks most—the imperious arrogance and the mercilessness that capture institutions and cowards in authority when a single narrative closes our collective minds to nuance, to experience and to the inconvenient truths. No one listened to the sub-postmasters; no one cared. No one in power moved a muscle to help, but now, all of a sudden, one media programme has shifted the narrative to reveal that the experts were wrong, our institutions were wrong, those in authority were wrong and an infallible computer system was, in fact, fallible. Even our justice system got it so tragically wrong, with thousands of court hearings and judges making wrong judgments. Will the Post Office lessons be learned regarding the covid insanity?

Who is actually dying now? It is not the old and frail, as it was with covid; in fact, deaths from dementia, a key benchmark of elderly deaths, have been in deficit ever since covid, as we would expect after a period of high mortality. Instead, particularly for cardiovascular deaths, there has been incessant week-on-week excess mortality for months and months in the young and middle-aged. Every age group is affected, but the 50 to 64 age group has had it worst—I declare an interest. They were struck with 12% more deaths than usual in 2022 and 13% more in 2023, and at least five in six of those deaths this year had nothing to do with covid whatever.

My constituent, Steven Miller, was a healthy IT engineer in his 40s. He had two doses of AstraZeneca jabs in the summer of 2021 and was ill shortly afterwards. His side effects were so bad that he lost his job, and in November 2021 he was rushed into hospital. He now has cardio- myopathy and ventricular failure with a maximum of five years to live, taking him to 2026, unless he has a heart transplant. When I saw him last, he had a resting heart rate of 145 beats per minute. He has subsequently lost his partner and access to his child, and he is at risk of losing his house. He now has a diagnosis from Glenfield Hospital in Leicester of vaccine-induced cardio- myopathy, and I want to help him to try to get his compensation. However, he is just one example among my constituents who will probably have 30 years of his life stolen from him. His child will lose his father. How is £120,000 of compensation possibly adequate for that?