Animal Rescue Centres

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend has been assiduous on this issue. I will move on to the ADCH later on and will recognise the work of the RSPCA and others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward a good issue for us to debate in Westminster Hall, as he always does. I told him earlier that my wife is a volunteer at Assisi Animal Sanctuary. There are many organisations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that do exceptional work and are regularly monitored. Assisi is one of those, as is the RSPCA, PAWS and Dogs Trust—there are some good examples. Does he think that the Government should perhaps look at the good examples when bringing together the legislation?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on her work. I mentioned four of the main organisations, but there are many across the country working in this field and I pay tribute to them all; they do fantastic work and we appreciate it.

The 2018 regulations refresh the licensing regime for: selling animals as pets; dog breeding; boarding kennels; boarding for cats; home boarding for dogs; day care for dogs—regulated for the first time—hiring horses; and keeping animals for exhibition.

First-tier Tribunals and Freeholders

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be here this evening. There have been several obstacles to the debate taking place, but we are here none the less, and I am pleased to see the Minister in the Chamber.

I secured the debate to highlight some of the things that seem to have gone terribly wrong with the property tribunal procedures. We know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is committed to reforming the law in respect of leasehold tenure, but the Ministry of Justice needs to do more in respect of first-tier tribunals. I am grateful to Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for his extensive assistance with this speech, and I am glad to see other colleagues who take an interest in these matters in the Chamber.

The property tribunal, or first-tier tribunal, is described as “quite informal” by the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service, which states:

“Tribunal hearings are quite informal. You can state your own case or have a friend or professional to speak for you. The Tribunal normally sits as a panel of three consisting of one legally trained member, one surveyor and one lay person to provide a balanced perspective. The Tribunal panel have control over the hearing and will decide in which order things are dealt with…You may require the services of a solicitor.”

That might be a correct statement in respect of some smaller cases involving smaller landlords, but in almost all large cases, or in cases involving large landlords, the tribunal process can be not only horribly complex, but formal and expensive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an important issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Law Society must do all that it can to encourage firms to provide pro bono legal advice so that help is available for tenants if they are in a tribunal facing a big-firm opponent that is lawyered up?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the advice available to individuals who seek redress in law and where they might seek it. As I will go on to explain, the playing field is not at all level in these tribunals. I hope that the Minister will comment on that later.

Island Health Trust

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the running of the Island Health Trust by its trustees and about the role of the Charity Commission. I would like the Minister to reassure me that when apparent abuses are highlighted, the Charity Commission has the appropriate powers and resources to investigate and intervene where necessary.

By way of a brief background, the Island Health Trust was set up to hold the physical asset of a health centre that provides much-valued GP services to residents on part of the Isle of Dogs. The centre also hosted several other health services at the same location. The centre was originally funded by a mixture of loan finance and grants from the London Docklands Development Corporation and Tower Hamlets Council, after a local campaign for such a centre in the 1980s.

The trust’s main sources of income are the rent from the local NHS clinical commissioning group and the service charges paid by the good doctors who work at the health centre. From that, the trust has accumulated a surplus of some £1.3 million. There are serious questions about £349,000 having been paid to a consulting company that is solely owned by the chair of trustees, Ms Suzanne Goodband. That represented 68% of the charity’s income over two years.

Despite the surplus that has built up, the trust has increased doctors’ service charges to such a high level that the GP practice has been forced to vacate the health centre’s first floor and other ancillary services have also had to move. There are concerns about trustees’ ulterior motives with respect to the future use and development of the building. There are suggestions that there is a plan to develop and build on the site, which has high land value, but such development cannot take place because of the terms of the original title deeds and arrangements, which were laid down decades ago.

It might be helpful if I list the concerns of local people and their representatives before I raise questions about the powers and response of the Charity Commission. The local concerns are, first, about money—the payment of £349,955 to the trust chair’s consulting company.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate, which highlights an important issue. Does he agree that regardless of how the money is distributed by the trustees, there must be checks and balances to secure the moneys? If things do not add up, questions should rightly be asked and must be answered. The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises the central point that I am trying to make. I hope to elaborate on why there are so many concerns locally.

As I was saying, a number of questions have been asked locally, including about the lack of local control and the fact that there have been 10 new trustees since April 2016, but curiously none of them was appointed from among the residents who actually live locally or are patients at the centre. Other concerns include the loss of services at the centre—I have already mentioned the emptying of the first floor; the high increase in service charges at the centre, which has led to the emptying of the building; a trustee being removed without notice or agreement; and trustees approving payments for periods before they were appointed as trustees. I will come back to that last concern, because it seems to me to be bordering on fraud and so possibly criminal.

People are concerned about the resolutions that altered the trust’s constitution, which were allegedly approved by a trustee who has written to the Charity Commission to deny that he did so. At the time of the amendment, the board of trustees had a quorum of three and there were only three trustees, so his denial calls into question the legality of such changes. If the decisions were not legal, the spectre of fraud arises again.

In addition, there have been claims by the chair that she has expertise in getting around restrictions imposed by the Charity Commission; accounts detailing “grants” given by the trust in 2016-17 that were not approved until autumn 2017, six months after the end of the financial year; and accounts detailing “grants” that were actually costs, such as for a deep clean of the centre, which was never a grant. To suggest that the trust was making grants, in line with its constitution, seems to be a defensive move, but it is clearly false. That is not an exhaustive list.

This debate appears to be mainly about health provision on the Isle of Dogs, because it is about the running of a local health centre, but because the Island Health Trust is a charity, the management and running of the building is not an NHS responsibility. I am grateful to see the much respected Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport responding and not one from the Department of Health and Social Care, because it is the Charity Commission, for which DCMS has oversight, that is responsible for governance of the IHT, not the Department of Health and Social Care. That itself raises questions about the model of oversight and controls —or the lack of them—but that is a separate issue.

I would not want the record to give the impression that it is just me who is unhappy. This matter is of public and cross-party concern. To show that, I need to say that these issues have also been raised by the mayor of Tower Hamlets, Mr John Biggs, who has written to me, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Charity Commission; the Tower Hamlets CCG; Blackwall and Cubitt town councillors Dave Chesterton and Candida Ronald, who have led the local campaign on this important issue, engaged directly with the Charity Commission, and written extensively to raise the alarm; and the leader of the Conservative group in Tower Hamlets, Councillor Peter Golds, who has also written to all concerned.

There has also been a resolution, unanimously passed by Tower Hamlets Council, and finally by a public meeting attended by more than 100 residents and patients. We therefore look to the Charity Commission to address the concerns. I first wrote to the Charity Commission on 10 February 2017, having been alerted to these matters. It wrote back, apparently on 2 March 2017, although I did not receive the response until 20 July that year, probably owing to the general election. Its conclusion in that correspondence was:

“The Commission is satisfied that the Trustees have acted within their powers.”

Needless to say, that was not the response that we wanted or hoped for, so we asked for an urgent meeting. Councillor Ronald and I got that meeting on 24 August 2017, when we personally presented our evidence, and asked why and how the commission could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the trustees acted within their powers in respect of the money paid to the chair’s personal consultancy. I should say that at that point we only knew about £180,000, as the latest accounts had not been published. It was only afterwards that we found out that it was nearly £350,000 that had been paid.

Although that did not look right to us, we then got correspondence from the commission on 1 September 2017, which stated that

“remuneration of the trustees, is explicitly allowed in the charity’s governing document, and therefore the Commission cannot intervene.”

That is key, because the constitution, which allows the payments to be made, only does so because it was altered by a vote of the trustees—a vote that I hope to demonstrate was actually invalid.

Evidence from documents supplied to the Charity Commission shows that the charity’s constitution was altered on 27 February 2015, reducing the quorum for decisions from three to two. It reads:

“The Companies Act 2006—Special Resolution:

1. That article 9.2 of the Charity’s Articles of Association be amended, such that Article 9.2 should read: ‘A quorum is two Trustee members.’”

This sounds fine, except that I have an email from one of the trustees at the time, Mr Stephen Molyneaux, which says:

“I was a Trustee of the Island Health Trust from the 1990s through to my ‘removal’ on 1 April 2016.”

He goes on to say that he wrote to the Tower Hamlets CCG expressing his concerns. He writes:

“This includes the ‘certificate of passing special resolutions’ which altered the constitution of the Island Health Trust. I can say categorically that these changes, were not approved by me. At the time that these resolutions were passed, the quorum for the Island Health Trust was three.”

He goes on:

“There were only three Trustees at the time – Suzanne Goodband, Alan Holman, and me. In the absence of my agreement, these changes could not have been legitimately agreed.”

It appears that the trust paid the chair’s consultancy over £300,000, and the Charity Commission concluded from the trust’s constitution that it had seen

“that the Trustees have acted within their powers,”

and

“that remuneration is allowed in the Charity’s governing document.”

But Mr Molyneaux, one of the three trustees in an organisation of only three trustees with a quorum of three trustees for decisions, says that the rule changes did not happen because he was not there.

Further to the meeting that Councillor Ronald and I had with the Charity Commission, and Mr Molyneaux’s email, the Charity Commission got in touch again. This time it said:

“However, we will look again at IHT and the decisions of the Trustees”.

On 1 December 2017, correspondence from the Charity Commission arrived saying that it had opened a statutory inquiry, which was better news. But two additional concerns are being raised locally.

First, a Charity Commission letter to me on 14 January 2018 says that

“the Commission normally deals directly with the Charity trustees.”

I seek reassurance from the Minister that former trustees, especially the whistleblower, Mr Stephen Molyneaux, will be interviewed, as well as others who have important evidence.

Secondly, a current trustee who contacted the commission with concerns reports that they were essentially told that as a trustee they are responsible, and that they should step down if they have concerns. That is second-hand information and not in writing, but the trustee is a professional person and I do not believe they could misunderstand. If that advice is accurate, it raises serious questions for other whistleblower trustees and the attitude of the Charity Commission towards them. It should afford them protection rather than just advising them to walk away.

There is serious unhappiness that a much used, needed and appreciated local health centre with professional clinicians and caring staff is being bled by people who should be cherishing, nourishing and promoting it. Furthermore, the Charity Commission, which is responsible for protecting public money and the good name of organisations that receive that money, could have acted more quickly and seems limited in how it can act. Money that should have been used for the health and welfare of local citizens instead sits in the bank account of an individual who boasts of getting around the rules and who has a chequered history of having previously resigned from an NHS trust, reported in the local media thus:

“In January 2004, Suzanne Goodband mysteriously quit her role as chief executive of the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals’ NHS Trust, after just seven months in charge.”

I hope that the Department of Health has advised the Minister what the background to that resignation was, as the information is not public. It may be entirely innocent, but I hope that the Minister can understand that there are local suspicions in east London.

This is a serious local issue, and I look forward to hearing some reassurance from the Minister. Locally there is disbelief, as what has happened is not only questionable but wrong and possibly criminal. The Charity Commission is the body that we all expect not only to safeguard public moneys but to protect the reputation of the charity sector and to sort things out when they go wrong. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it has the resources and the powers to do that important job.

UK Victims of IRA Attacks: Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and Weapons

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Thursday 14th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the hon. Gentleman completely. It is not difficult to make a distinction based on cause of death, but is he saying that there would be a different system of compensation, and that someone who lost their life in circumstances identifiably traced to Gaddafi would have access to one fund, but those who died in other circumstances would not? That is what successive Governments have found difficult, because the impact of the loss of life due to a terrorist incident is the same, whatever the cause was. It would be difficult to have a fund that distinguished victims and gave some victims and their families access to something that others are denied.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is patently unfair that some victims may not get compensation and others would. The distinction we are drawing, in the absence of a UK fund to compensate victims of terrorism per se, is that the Libyans have paid other Governments in other countries money to compensate their victims. Apparently, we have not been making the same efforts to get Libyan compensation for our victims. If we can get that for the victims who can be identified, let us get them compensation. The British Government ought to be looking after the other victims of terrorism, as I hope they do, from whichever source the terrorism outrage comes.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

Residential Premises: Product Safety and Fire Risk

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered product safety and fire risk in residential premises.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate; given how many colleagues have turned up to support it and speak in it, I will take no more time than I need. I have timed my speech at eight minutes.

I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has led a determined parliamentary campaign on these issues, supporting the attempts of the London fire brigade, Which? and Electrical Safety First to improve product safety. I am grateful to those organisations for the material that they have supplied for the debate; to the Library for the debate pack that it produced yesterday; and to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which weighed in this morning. All the safety organisations agree on what was and is needed.

I do not need to say very much about the scale of the problem. Three fires a day in the United Kingdom involve tumble dryers; more than 4,000 fires in 2016 were caused by faulty appliances and leads; and 2,000 fires in London between 2011 and 2016 involved white goods. The Grenfell fire was started by a fridge-freezer, and deaths have occurred elsewhere, too—one in 2010, five in 2011, two in 2014—as a result of similar sources of ignition.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She is well liked and respected across the House, and much is expected of her. The Library debate pack generously details her efforts: correspondence and meetings with Whirlpool and others in the sector, press notices, written statements, meetings with colleagues, parliamentary and other questions, steering groups, working parties, support for Register My Appliance Day, and more. Those are all commendable, but many of us want a conclusive, robust and ambitious Government response, and it will continue to reflect badly on this Administration if one does not come soon. As London fire brigade’s letter states:

“There has been over three years of reports and recommendations but as yet no action from Government…the review of the UK product recall system was first announced in November 2014. This was then launched in March 2015 with consumer champion Lynn Faulds Wood leading the review which reported in February 2016 with a series of recommendations. A steering group was then set up to take these forward. Following the Shepherds Court fire, a new working group to replace the steering group was set up in autumn 2016 which published its recommendations in July 2017.”

The Government are due to publish their response at any time; I would be grateful for an update from the Minister. Yesterday, in her latest letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, she repeated her expectation of an “autumn response”. When I was Minister for time at the Department of Trade and Industry—not many people know that there is a Minister for time, but it was me once—my office once promised an “autumn response” in an answer to a parliamentary question. When I inquired what that meant exactly, I was told it meant “by 21 December,” which was the date of the end of the Session that autumn. Will the Minister clarify whether the response to the working party will come in late December or early November?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has been a champion for product safety. Does he agree that the Whirlpool tumble dryer revelation is a warning that the electrical sector needs to heed before there is loss of life? The Government must play a part by enforcing codes of practice on an industry that is managing to fly under the radar.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes the central point to which I am sure all Front-Bench spokespeople will refer when they wind up the debate. I will come on to Whirlpool’s response and the central recommendations of the Faulds Wood report.

Page 7 of the Library debate pack includes an interesting detail that had previously escaped me: if people have used their credit cards to buy faulty equipment, credit card companies could be held liable. The credit card companies may therefore sue manufacturers for faulty goods. I have not heard that point mentioned in any of the debates so far, but if the credit card companies weighed in and threatened to sue Whirlpool, that might be a game-changer. That is not within the scope of this debate, but I mention it as an aside.

Grenfell Tower Fire

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sorry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have declined intervention requests from other colleagues. If I have time at the end of my speech, I shall be happy to give way.

I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to comment on any of those building matters. The fire service, as inspector and enforcement body, should offer us some peace of mind, but reports of a 25% reduction in both domestic fire brigade inspections and fire safety audits do not inspire confidence, and perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on the accuracy of those reports. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service is present; he may be able to advise his hon. Friend.

Of course, the Lakanal House fire, the six people killed there and the coroner’s inquiry were a wake-up call, as was the Shirley Towers fire in Southampton, in which two firefighters, Alan Bannon and James Shears, died. Much happened as a result, but not all the lessons were learned. The key lesson for the Government was about the reviewing of the building regulations guidance on fire, as contained in Approved Document B. That is the architects’ bible: it says what is allowed and what is required. The guidance needs to be reviewed regularly to take into account not only new methods of construction, but new materials being used. They are changing all the time, as we can see from the structures and the skyline around us. Approved Document B gives details of when and where sprinklers should be used, and what types of fire alarm system should be mandatory for which types of building.

I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement earlier today, and the convening of his new independent expert panel of advisers. As I said to him at the time, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee has historically been central to such work. The last published review of Approved Document B appeared in 2006. Her Honour Frances Kirkham, CBE, the Lakanal House coroner, wrote to the Secretary of State in 2013 saying, very simply,

“It is recommended that your Department review”

Approved Document B. The Secretary of State’s response, in the same year, was:

“We have commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the Building Regulations. We expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the Approved Document in 2016/17.”

As the Minister will know, however, BRAC has not met for five years, although a succession of Ministers assured us that work was in hand.

As late as last Thursday, when I asked the Prime Minister what assurance she could give

“that the review of building regulations and Approved Document B, as recommended by the Lakanal House coroner, will be carried out as urgently as possible, and that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which has historically undertaken this work, will be recalled as a matter of urgency”,

she replied:

“That work is indeed in hand.”

She also said:

“Obviously, that will be one of the issues that the public inquiry will want to look at.” —[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 178.]

As I said then, that work does not need to wait for a recommendation from a public inquiry. Can the Minister assure us that the new independent panel of experts will undertake it as a matter of urgency? I should be grateful if he could give us a timeframe for its work programme.

The final matter that I want to raise, before making some concluding remarks, is Government policy in respect of fire sprinklers in new schools. In 2008, the Minister of State at the Department for Education upgraded the guidance for local education authorities and school governors, and changed the wording on what was expected. He wrote, and the Department published, the following:

“It is now our expectation that all new schools will have sprinklers fitted. Any exceptions to this will have to be justified by demonstrating that a school is low risk”—

for instance, single-storey or brick-built. The Government have changed this guidance, and the now revised version from the Department for Education states:

“The Building Regulations do not require the installation of fire sprinkler suppression systems in school buildings for life safety and therefore BB 100”—

that is, building bulletin 100—

“no longer includes an expectation that most new school buildings will be fitted with them.”

The regulations that it cites are 11 years old. They are overdue for revision, and at least one coroner’s inquiry has requested that they be reviewed. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed press reports at the weekend that the Government were reversing this and going back to the original guidance from 2008.

Sprinklers save lives, and they are not as expensive as some detractors claim. The situation is not helped by TV adverts, dramas and films incorrectly portraying buildings being flooded whenever a sprinkler head activates. It is only the sprinkler directly above the fire that sprays water, not those across the whole building or even a floor. We know from reports that the cost of fitting sprinklers to Grenfell Tower would have been £200,000. If we divide that by 79—you do the math, Mr Speaker—it works out at just over £2,531 per death, and that figure is likely to come down as more deaths are confirmed.

To conclude, we need to know the terms of reference of the public inquiry as soon as possible. We need to know who is to preside over it, when it will be expected to report and when we can expect interim reports on urgent life safety matters. We need to know when the independent panel will be convened, and when we can expect building regulations and the guidance in Approved Document B to be published.

It has been said often over the past 12 days that the Grenfell Tower fire could have been prevented at best, or at least mitigated. The deaths could also have been prevented, at least in the main. It is right to acknowledge—there has been controversy over this—that the Lakanal House inquiry did not order the retrofitting of all high-rise blocks with fire sprinklers. What it did say was:

“It is recommended that your department”—

the Department for Communities and Local Government—

“encourage providers of housing in high-rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retrofitting of sprinkler systems.”

It was not quite an instruction, but coming from a coroner’s inquiry, it was a pretty forceful recommendation.

There will be harrowing accounts to come at the public inquiry and/or the inquests. Historically, the vast majority of safety legislation has been written after a tragedy or disaster, and that includes fire regulations. Health and safety regulations, which are much derided in the media, save lives but they also cost money. The message from the Secretary of State’s statement today is that there will be a cost to local authorities and registered social landlords, and we need assurances of Government support that will pay to keep our people safe. The full lessons of Grenfell Tower will not be clear until after the public inquiry, but it is clear that actions need to be taken now. The Government have a responsibility. Ultimately, the buck stops here in Parliament with all of us, and we need to commit the support that is needed in communities across the country now.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. There are 32 high-rise blocks of flats in Northern Ireland, plus other private high rises as well. Does he think that the independent panel of advisers should include Northern Ireland in its investigation, so that all parts and regions of the United Kingdom can benefit from its findings?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of the devolved Assemblies, because there are different practices in different countries. I commend the Welsh Assembly in this regard. Ann Jones, a former colleague of mine in the Fire Brigades Union, has piloted legislation through the Assembly, and Carl Sargeant, the Minister, has been on to my office today. The legislation in Wales is different from ours; it has improved and is more protective. I know that there are different procedures in Northern Ireland and Scotland as well. A lead from the Westminster Government would be very welcome, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. My last word is to commend the emergency service workers—firefighters in the main—who risked life and limb to try to help. If we give them the resources and the kit, they will do the job, and we stand in admiration of them, as always.

Drug-resistant Tuberculosis (Developing Countries)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Jim Fitzpatrick

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall for debate. A group of children and young people from Swaziland were recently in my constituency. They were a Christian choir, and every one of those children had AIDS. In Swaziland, 40% of people have AIDS. Does he feel that we need to address such issues at the highest level? That choir is an example of what can happen when medication is available; if they can survive AIDS and TB, they can make a contribution to their country and ultimately across the world.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the Minister will repeat that agreement on the positive outcomes that result from appropriate treatment.

First, the report recommends that we strengthen the global fund by doubling the UK’s contribution. International donor funding, including the majority of the UK’s response to TB in developing countries, comes almost entirely through the global fund. In 22 high-TB-burden countries, six are totally reliant on the fund and in another 15 it accounts for two thirds of their budget. To scale up access and treatment for DR-TB, which remain woefully low, the resources the global fund has at its disposal need to increase. The Government have a key role to play in the replenishment of the fund, having been a key driving force behind the recent reforms it undertook. I commend the Government for that policy. What are their thoughts on our contribution to the fund to address the threat of TB and DR-TB? A lead from the UK should happen as soon as possible, to help leverage more from other donor Governments in this important replenishment year.

Secondly, the report recommends investment in innovation through TB REACH and continued investment in research and development. The Government have already shown leadership in support of developing new, badly needed tools to tackle TB—a policy of successive Governments that I hope will continue. Some of those tools have come to market, specifically new rapid diagnostics, but despite that, 3 million people each year still fail to access diagnosis and treatment for TB, which includes a large portion of people with drug-resistant strains. We need to accelerate our efforts to diagnose TB by rolling out new technologies, and it is clear that we need to think outside the box. TB REACH is one way to do that.

As the Minister knows, TB REACH is a Stop TB Partnership-hosted initiative that gives small grants of up to $1 million to find and treat those who do not have access to TB diagnosis or treatment. It is an incubator for innovation and pushes the frontiers of technology. It works closely with DFID-funded UNITAID. In short, TB REACH goes where others cannot and shows Governments and donors how to reach the unreachable. Critically, it often demonstrates with data what projects could be scaled up. The Minister may wish to express a view on whether she agrees with that assessment. Beyond their contribution of core funding to the Stop TB Partnership, which does not cover TB REACH, I ask that the Government become a donor to TB REACH, to maximise their investments in UNITAID and support the expansion of new diagnostic tools to detect and ultimately treat cases of TB, in addition to the work of the global fund. The funding allocated should be directed by the evaluation of the Stop TB Partnership later this year. I will be interested to hear her view on that recommendation.

Thirdly and finally, I want to mention a national strategy for TB in the UK and the importance of a global target within that. A national strategy for TB has never been developed, despite the public health risk the disease presents. The UK has seen rising rates of TB since the 1980s and DR-TB increased by 26% in the past year alone. I welcome that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) indicated that her Department is supporting Public Health England to develop a strategy. I bumped into her before the Division and thanked her for her leadership on the matter, in which I have a constituency as well as a personal interest. I was recently invited to a seminar, organised by the Barts and Royal London TB unit, by Dr Veronica White, the consultant in respiratory medicine. Unsurprisingly, it is the biggest TB team in the UK and does sterling work locally and nationally.

With all that in mind and given the clear link between global and UK rates, will the Government set a specific target on their contribution internationally to tackling DR-TB as part of a comprehensive TB strategy, led by Public Health England?