Health and Care Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate to outline the case behind amendments 106 to 109 in my name, and to speak in favour of those in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I am also grateful from the outset for the time that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have afforded me in recent weeks to discuss these matters.

First and foremost, I want to set out that in principle I am opposed to the expansion of the nanny state. I did not get into politics to tell people what they should or should not eat, or businesses how they should go about advertising their products and wares. However, I equally do not doubt for one moment that obesity is a serious health concern for this country. It is a question of the detail and the manner in which we go about tackling it as a country—principally, that we go about it through education and ensuring people are able to make choices for themselves, rather than using blunt tools that I fear will not work. As I highlighted in a Backbench Business debate on the obesity strategy some months ago, the Government’s own research shows that the measures in the Bill will reduce calorie intake among children by only 1.74 calories a day. If that is the outcome, we must seriously question the measures before us.

The amendments in my name, however, seek to rectify an unfairness that will exist if the Government push ahead with these advertising restrictions, which have businesses in my constituency very concerned. For example, farmers such as Morris of Hoggeston, who grow oats, are concerned that within the categories under the HFSS, or high in fat, sugar or salt, measures, products such as porridge and granola, which are hardly the choice of most children—certainly not my children—are in scope. We need to do something to sort that out. Great British broadcasters, both public service and fully commercial, also stand to lose some £200 million a year from the restrictions we have before us.

My amendments are about fundamental fairness, and seek to treat broadcasters the same way as online platforms. In the first place, research shows that children, who these measures are most prominently aimed at, do not watch broadcast television as much as they used to. They look more and more to YouTube, on-demand services and online; I can testify to that from my own home, where my five-year-old much prefers YouTube to watching CBeebies or other children’s television programmes, and I think that is the same for most children. [Interruption.] I am not sure what is causing amusement on the Opposition Benches.

In fact, 95% of viewing of broadcast television before the 9 pm watershed is by adults, not children, and there are already regulations in place during scheduled children’s programming. So I fear the measures in this Bill will not work, and the fundamental unfairness that I spoke of earlier is the manner in which broadcasters will be treated compared with the online platforms.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Given that there is this disparity between the online advertiser and the broadcaster advertiser, and if we are seeking to restrict broadcasting advertisement to children so that they do not become unhealthy, would not the logic follow that we should equally restrict the online advertiser, rather than saying, “Let’s allow more of a free for all because this is more difficult to do for the online”?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he will let me make a little more progress, I think he will find that my amendments seek to put a harsher perspective of this on the online platforms, rather than letting anyone off anything whatsoever. I repeat that my fundamental position is one of opposition to the nanny state and restrictions, but recognising that if the Government are going to push these restrictions forward, we have to have fairness and parity across broadcast and online sectors, otherwise there will be loopholes, things will fall through the cracks and the Government will not achieve their objectives.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I certainly support the argument that my hon. Friend is putting forward. Does he feel that the Government have found themselves in a position where they feel they need to react because of the genuine obesity crisis among young people and this would seem to be the highest-profile publicity effort, but that really we should be focusing on the evidence of the case and the argument, so that we can actually have an impact on it, rather than steal the headline that might just last a couple of days?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: if we are to tackle obesity as a country, we have to look at the most successful outcomes. Fundamentally, I believe those to be ones of education, ensuring that parents are empowered to be able to make the best decisions for their children and ensuring that people are empowered to come to the right choices for themselves. The point about these amendments is to ensure that we are not giving a green light to one side while harshly penalising another for hosting these adverts.

The nub of the point is that the broadcasters will, in effect, have to pre-clear any advertising that is put on to their platform and there will be very harsh penalties, leading right up to the point of revocation of their broadcast licence, if they fail to do this. By contrast, although the Bill puts significant restrictions on the online platforms, they are not put through that same test. They are not put through the same harsh restrictions and requirements that are broadcasters are. This is especially important when we consider recent evidence that has been put into the public domain. The Advertising Standards Authority recently drew considerable attention to the mass flouting of the rules by online influencers across many sectors. This House’s Select Committee on Work and Pensions made an important point about online regulation in a report in March this year on protecting pension savers. It said:

“Regulators appear powerless to hold online firms to account”—

for online advertisements—

“in the same way they would be able to for traditional media.”

We need to bear that in mind as we consider this Bill, because if current regulations do not work in that field, I fear that the regulations on online providers proposed in this Bill will not either.

I offer these amendments as a call to those on the Treasury Bench, including the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—an excellent Minister who will consider these points carefully—to rethink the practicalities of what we are saying to the broadcast and online sectors. If the Government are intent on pushing this forward, I ask them to find that parity that ensures that broadcasters are not unfairly penalised. Great British broadcasters—ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, Sky—already produce some incredible educational programming about diet, cooking, wellbeing and lifestyle. It would be horrendous for us to cut off their lifeline of funding.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I have put my name to my hon. Friend’s amendments because I agree with the points that he makes.

It is surely vital that those responsible broadcasters should not be penalised when they are doing the right thing—and yet there is effectively a wild west on the internet, where we are simply not able to manage the issue. I recognise that the Minister will be concerned that the online harms Bill will also deal with some of these matters, but we need to find a cross-Government way of dealing with this.

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with great experience from her time as Secretary of State at DCMS. That is the fundamental point of the amendments; it is not a complex or difficult case, but purely one of fairness and treating the different platforms—the diverse media of 2021—the same, rather than pretending that the media from the old analogue age can somehow be treated differently from those of the digital age.

Let us not cut off the lifeline that funds so many good educational programmes. Let us think again about restrictions on advertisers, move forward in a way that can enable people to make the right and healthy choices about what they and their children eat without this level of restriction, and ensure that, when restriction is brought in, it is fair.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this first part of the debate on the Bill.

A decade ago, virtually to the day, I was a young activist taking part in marches, protests, online campaigns, letter writing campaigns, petitions and much more in opposition to what would become the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We argued that it would lead to more fragmentation, less integration, confused decision making and more privatisation and that it would not make anybody any healthier.

Despite significant opposition to the legislation, the Government pushed on. But as campaigners, we were right, weren’t we? The 2012 Act created a fragmented system that did not promote health and care integration. Performance against NHS targets, even pre-pandemic, was dismal and now it is even worse. Waiting lists have grown extraordinarily, and staff vacancies have grown to crisis proportions.

We are here today and tomorrow to consign that legislation to history—perhaps less the end of an era and more the end of an error. But the same Government who broke the system now offer a new package of reforms, and that should really scare us. These are the wrong reforms at the wrong time. There are no answers in them to the waiting times crisis, no answers to the capacity issues in accident and emergency or our ambulance services, no answers to access issues for our GPs or dentists, and no answers to the environmental factors that make a country with so many assets so unhealthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend, and other Members, that I always seek to maintain an open mind, and always seek to reflect carefully on the contributions made by Members. I will turn shortly to the challenges posed by television, which is essentially a linear broadcasting medium, in comparison with those posed by online broadcasting. I am conscious that I must conclude my speech before 7 pm.

There is evidence to suggest that the targeting of online adverts does not account for the use of shared devices and profiles between parents and children, the communal viewing of content or false reporting of children’s ages. This, combined with concerns about the accuracy of interest-based targeting and other behavioural data as a way of guessing a user’s age and a lack of transparency and reporting data online, shows why the Government believe that we need to introduce strong advertising restrictions online. Any alternative proposals would therefore need to meet a high bar in terms of protecting children online, and we consider alternatives that rely on a targeting approach to be—currently—potentially insufficient to meet the policy objectives.

Amendments 106 to 109 are relevant to the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for raising these matters. His amendments mean that liability for online advertisements found to be in breach of the restrictions included in the Bill would shift to become the responsibility of the platforms rather than the advertisers, which some may see as providing parity with the enforcement mechanisms for broadcast television.

During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors in the online advertising sphere should have responsibility for breaches, alongside those of advertisers. However, we concluded that this was not the right place to consider that broader issue.

The online advertising ecosystem is complex and dynamic. The scale and speed of advertising online, as well as the personalised nature of advertising and the lack of transparency in this system, makes it difficult for platforms to have control over what is placed on them. The approach that we are taking in the Bill best aligns with the current enforcement frameworks across TV, online and on-demand programme services advertising, and is familiar to industry. It will ensure that there is limited confusion for broadcasters, platforms or advertisers, as the liable parties for less-healthy food and drink product advertising breaches will be the same as those for any other advertising breaches. The Government intend to consider this issue as part of the wider online advertising programme, on which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult in the coming months.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment to consider the points in my amendments, and with that commitment in place, I will not seek to push them to vote. However, may I ask him, as he makes these considerations along with colleagues in the DCMS, to ensure that broadcasters are fully consulted so that they can point out the loopholes that any online provisions could throw up?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s confirmation that he does not intend to press his amendments to a Division, and I will ensure that his point will be heard not only in the Department of Health and Social Care but in DCMS as well.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for his amendments 111 to 113 and for bringing this debate before the House. I would like to reassure him that small and medium-sized enterprises—businesses with 249 employees or fewer—that pay to advertise less healthy food and drink products that they manufacture and/or sell will be exempt from the less healthy food and drink restrictions and can continue to advertise. The definition of SMEs will be provided in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Bill, which will enable Ministers to act promptly in future years if new or emerging evidence suggests that amendments are needed. We will conduct a short consultation as soon as possible on the SME definition to be included in the draft regulations. The Government want to ensure consistency with other definitions for size of business that have been used for other obesity policies, such as the out-of-home calorie labelling policy, to create a level playing field. Our preferred definition, therefore, is a standard definition used by Government across other policies.

Covid-19 Vaccinations: 12 to 15-year-olds

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The Government have taken copious legal advice on this issue. I remind the House that on the rare occasions when there is a difference of opinion and a parent withholds consent when their child wants to be vaccinated, the clinician will bring together in consultation the child and the parents to try to reach consensus before they move on to the question of Gillick competence.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Following the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) earlier, could he outline the concrete steps that the Government will be taking, particularly within educational settings but also in wider society, to guarantee that no unvaccinated child will be treated any differently from a vaccinated one?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

There will be no question of discriminating in any way between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Vaccinations are voluntary and will remain so.

Covid Vaccine Passports

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I hope that when my hon. Friend pauses and reflects on what we will be bringing forward, she will see that it is that it is much better for the nightclub industry to be able to open sustainably while we get through the next few months. The winter months are going to be tough and challenging not just for covid but also for flu. It is a far better option to listen to the clinical advice of the CMOs and implement something that is difficult for me to do, and goes against everything I believe in, but nevertheless is the right thing to do.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

We have a whole summer’s worth of data from the events research programme that shows how organisers of events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone in my constituency had to meet extreme costs to put in the planning and the checking of vaccine passports at the gate. Before this policy is put to a vote in this House, will my hon. Friend commit to publishing the data on the cost to business of vaccine passport checks through the events research programme, so that we can be fully apprised of the cost of this policy?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend’s question is important and is one that we will be looking at. Suffice to say, as I mentioned earlier, the events research programme certainly gave us the confidence that people can deal with this measure relatively easily. In the way that a nightclub bouncer can check ID, they can check covid vaccination status.

Covid-19 Update

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I thought that the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on the Opposition Front Bench was Captain Hindsight, but, seriously, this argument is completely divorced from reality. The data that the hon. Lady has just recommended to the House is data about what happened between 25 March and 7 April, and she complains about a decision the Government took on 2 April because we did not know of the data up to 7 April; so she brings to this House information from after a decision was taken and asks why it was not taken into account for that decision, and the answer is because it had not happened yet.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Virtually everybody in the most vulnerable category, which made up 95% of hospitalisations and deaths, is protected by both jabs, the vaccines work against all variants thus far, and the latest Office for National Statistics data estimate that eight in 10 of us have antibodies. So will my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely how much better these metrics need to be in order for full freedom to be restored?

[Matt Hancock]

Our goal is that, by 19 July, two thirds of adults—around two thirds—will be double vaccinated. The data published today shows that the protection from transmission of this disease from a single jab is quite a lot lower for the delta variant, but the protection from hospitalisation from both jabs is that bit higher. That means that we do have to take a bit more time to get the protection from the double dose, whereas previously the single dose got a very significant proportion of the protection, but it does mean that once we get there, we have confidence in the effectiveness of the jab at keeping this virus at bay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Macmillan estimates that the current backlog of people awaiting a first cancer treatment across England stands at 39,000 people. What plans can my right hon. Friend outline to bolster cancer services so that those people get the treatment they need?

[Matt Hancock]

Recovering the backlog that has been caused by the pandemic is a huge task for the NHS, and was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) from the Opposition Front Bench, quite rightly. The backlog has unfortunately been increased as a consequence of the pandemic. We have put in extra money—an extra £1 billion this year—and we are seeing cancer services running at 100% of their pre-pandemic levels, and in some cases above 100%, in order to get through the backlog. The most important thing for the public watching this and for my hon. Friend’s constituents is to make sure the message gets out loud and clear that the NHS is open, and that if they have a problem, they should please come forward.

Obesity Strategy 2020

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Obesity is clearly a huge challenge facing our country, and one that absolutely should not be ignored, but I do fear that the state is significantly overreaching in some of the proposals that have come forward as part of the obesity strategy. The approach to foods high in fat, sugar and salt encompasses a perversely broad range of products, including butter, granola, porridge oats, muesli and protein bars, none of which have any particular appeal to or indeed are marketed to children, yet all of which are treated as junk food.

Breakfast cereals were previously heralded for high fibre but are now demonised. No distinction is made for naturally occurring sugars and fats from the dried fruits and nuts that are so often present in those products. If the state is really saying that breakfast cereals are bad, where does that naturally push people? A bacon sandwich? A full English? A pain au chocolat? All are things that I am particularly partial to but that I do not think the public health establishment will be keen to endorse. Perhaps people could have toast? But then we see that butter is on the HFSS naughty list.

Many breakfast cereal producers pay farmers, including in my constituency, a premium for buying their oats, thereby paying for the environmental and wildlife schemes that I am sure we all value. Let us be in no doubt that any policy that reduces cereal-makers’ ability to sell wholegrain cereals will adversely impact on great British farmers.

[Mr Harper]

I was intrigued to listen to my hon. Friend’s list of products. Is not the issue that there is a focus on individual products when, actually, the important thing in getting to a healthy weight is not individual products but a person’s diet as a whole and the balance between individual products across their diet? To demonise individual products is not the way to go.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely endorse and agree with everything that my right hon. Friend says. It must be about the promotion of a balanced, healthy diet. Some of the things that we all know are not particularly good for us can be part of that balanced, healthy diet, so I absolutely agree.

The restrictions also undermine some alternatives to high-sugar sacks. For example, protein bars are used by many adults who lead highly active lifestyles. Surely the restriction contradicts the ultimate goal of the Government’s strategy: healthier living.

Let me move on briefly to the question of TV advertising. Broadcasters and creative industries throughout the United Kingdom are estimated to be in line to lose some £200 million because of the proposals. With children spending far more time watching online content than traditional TV channels, it is essential, not least for our public service broadcasters, that there is an absolutely clear level playing field between TV broadcast and online. Anything less would be to let down our broadcasters, particularly, as I say, our public service broadcasters.

I would also argue that the 9 pm watershed is equally destined to fail, as research shows that it will lower the calorie intake among children by just 1.7 calories a day, which is simply inconsequential. We need a more proportionate, less interventionist solution that ensures fairness for all. Obesity is a complex problem, but the solution cannot be nannying, ineffective policies.

I certainly did not get into politics to tell people what they should and should not eat, because when people are free to make an informed choice about the way they live, without coercion or state interference, they are much more likely to keep those changes long term, to the benefit of the health of the nation. I urge the Government to rethink the proposals and strip out the nonsensical inclusion of products such as cereals and protein bars. Let us look once more to freedom, choice and personal responsibility.

Covid-19

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and just remind her that Public Health England makes those decisions for itself: it is not up to the Minister when it releases its data.

On pubs and hospitality, indoor areas of venues—cafés, restaurants, bars and so on—can reopen. In any premises serving alcohol, customers will still be required to order, to be served and to eat and drink while seated. Venues are obviously prohibited from providing smoking equipment such as shisha pipes. It is just to make sure that we do everything we can to limit the ability of the virus to infect others. Within that, reducing social contact is incredibly important. Some businesses, such as nightclubs, must remain closed and follow the restrictions. It is very much about making sure that we work together to control the B.1.617.2 variant, exercising the common sense that the Prime Minister spoke about. The guidance is there to do that. People on the whole have been following the guidance.

On transmission and the effectiveness of the two doses—the hon. Lady’s question on accelerating the vaccination programme—the whole idea of us following the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidelines and advice on vaccination is to be able to vaccinate at scale. We have two big weeks ahead of us and we will continue to focus on the second dose. When people get that text message or the call to bring forward their second dose, they should please take that up, because it is incredibly important in controlling the variant.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is tremendous news that the vaccines that are being so successfully rolled out across our United Kingdom are highly effective against the variant first identified in India, but many businesses continue to be delicately balanced on a cliff edge of either a successful summer or bankruptcy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a positive message of hope and certainty that all the evidence continues to back up the complete end of all restrictions and social distancing by 21 June?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

It is good news from Public Health England on the B.1.617 variant that two doses of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca-Oxford are as effective on infection and are very likely to be even more effective on serious illness and hospitalisation in real-world circumstances. Ultimately, we are effectively pursuing an evidence-led strategy. The four weeks plus one—the five-week interval—are for us to be able to assess the data and share it with Parliament and the nation. At the moment, I am cautiously optimistic that we are in a good place. We have to remain vigilant and we have to work together. As I said earlier, let us take the politics out of this and make sure that all our constituents are careful, and we will get there together.

Public Health

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler).  I have spoken in previous debates on covid about my belief that we need to look for a better balance in our response to what is undoubtedly a horrendous virus. We need greater analysis of the impact of the restrictions that we are asking people to abide by—the detailed analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) spoke of so eloquently a few moments ago—to ensure that we have the most proportionate possible response to covid-19.

I have voted with the Government in all the votes on our response so far. I have to say that I did so reluctantly on the last occasion, but I did so on the commitment that we could have a more granular approach—that my Buckingham constituency, which has consistently had lower infection rates than surrounding areas such as the south of Buckinghamshire, could be looked at on its own. Unfortunately, that did not happen, despite the numbers continuing to be low before Christmas. Instead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) mentioned, we went from tier 2 to tier 4 in just a matter of days. That brought with it significant devastation for business and, I fear, a long-term mental health crisis that will be with us for generations.

I cannot be alone in this House in having received many emails and letters from constituents highlighting that devastation. A restaurant owner in Buckingham wrote to say that a lot of businesses, including theirs, are suffering in silence, some resigned to failure. I have visited wet pubs that are grateful for the £1,000 but, when they are losing £3,500 a week, are in a very grim place indeed.

Perhaps this email from Mrs M will bring it into perspective. She wrote:

“I live alone. I lost my father earlier this year, during the first lockdown. No proper funeral. No family other than my Stepmum. His ashes are still with the undertakers. I haven’t been able to process my grief properly as the rites of passage haven’t happened. I feel as if I’m in solitary confinement without any reason to prolong my…existence.”

Or this from Mrs H, who wrote: “I live on my own and I’ve been self-isolating much of the year. I suffer from complex PTSD as well as diabetes and other disorders. My anxiety and depression linked to my mental health issues are a constant battle, and spending Christmas alone and worrying about my mother has been too much to bear.” I could go on; I have literally hundreds of such emails outlining the level of devastation suffered.

I offer those as examples of why we need that detailed analysis and a real understanding of the impact of the restrictions on real people’s lives, beyond covid. We need an understanding of how it can be that in Buckinghamshire, we went into the second lockdown in tier 1, came out in tier 2 and then had that rapid rise to tier 4, yet with each restriction that has been added it seems that the infection rate has got worse. We need to understand why that is. Why is it that lockdowns do not appear to be working?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned a few moments ago, my local council declared a major incident today. I have talked to our hospital trust, and it is full; it is at a capacity crisis. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North spoke passionately about the situation at Milton Keynes Hospital, which is used by many of my constituents.

With that in mind, and without the detailed analysis that really shows what these restrictions are doing, I cannot vote for the Government’s measures tonight, but I cannot vote against them either. It is hard for me to abstain, as I always like to be for or against something, but I urge the Minister to bring forward that analysis so that we can move forward with the hope that the vaccine brings.

Childhood Cancers: Research

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

When the Paul family in my constituency were told of their four-year-old daughter Georgia’s cancer diagnosis, their immediate reaction was not one of shock but of, “We can fight this; she is tough.” To then discover that there was absolutely no treatment was simply devastating for the family. Georgia had been diagnosed with DIPG—a brain tumour. She was enrolled on a trial, but it became clear that there was no chance of saving her. No matter what angle the family approached it from, DIPG is universally fatal, as we have heard already. No child has ever survived it.

DIPG remains the most fatal of all childhood brain cancers, and I fear that is in part due to a lack of funding for research. In seven short months, Georgia went from a happy, active and engaged little girl who loved life to losing her ability to walk, talk or swallow. The 28th November just gone marked exactly two years since Georgia died in her family’s arms, leaving them absolutely heartbroken.

Another constituent, Sue Farrington Smith, lost her beloved niece, Alison Phelan, to a brain stem glioma tumour in 2001, three weeks before her eighth birthday and 10 months after diagnosis. Sue went on to establish Brain Tumour Research, an umbrella group of 22 brain tumour charities that have campaigned to move the dial on funding for brain tumour research. Their campaign led to the establishment of the 2016 task group on research, and they are now working with the Government to see how the £40 million Tessa Jowell fund is spent.

The good news is that, in the past 50 years, there have been dramatic improvements in treating childhood brain tumours. Historically, 75% of children affected sadly died, but now 75% survive. That proves what research can do. In about 70% of cases, radiotherapy, which is the only treatment currently offered to DIPG patients, does shrink the tumour, which allows for a few months of normal life before it returns. Georgia, who I spoke of earlier, was one of the unlucky ones for whom radiotherapy did nothing.

I welcome the fact that improving cancer outcomes, including for children, is a major priority for the Government. I support the £1.2 billion that the Government have put into the cancer drugs fund, which has helped 95,000 people, including children, to access the latest and most innovative cancer care drugs. We have to recognise, however, that in the UK only 20.8% of childhood cancer research is Government-funded, and the rest of the funding comes from charities, the fundraising for many of which has been severely hampered by covid.

Let us commit to providing that new research funding for childhood cancers and ensure that a legal proportion of other funding must be used for childhood cancer research to adequately balance the years of life lost against the relative rarity of conditions. This is about the children who will be diagnosed in the future and who will face the same dreadful, awful news that Georgia and her family did. That will happen year after year, unless funding is allocated to research.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have to make judgments based on what is right, balancing the different considerations we have to take into account, including the yearning that many people have to come together at Christmas, and trying to find a balanced way through. We did that by working with the devolved authorities, and I am glad that we came to a UK-wide approach to Christmas, taking into account all the considerations that were necessary.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

May I add my voice of congratulation to my right hon. Friend and to the scientists, the pharmaceutical companies and everybody involved in today’s good news on securing that vaccine? However, he will know of my deep reservations on the severity of the restrictions being placed on my constituents through the new tier system. I am grateful for the time he took to discuss this with me yesterday. A big part of my reluctant decision to vote with the Government last night was the promise of more granularity when it comes to the review on 16 December. Can he therefore confirm that, if the numbers continue to come down, the Buckingham constituency can be considered for tier 1 before Christmas?

[Matt Hancock]

I enjoyed the conversations that I had with my hon. Friend on the approach to the Division Lobby. I can confirm that the answer to his question is yes.