UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring the future of the UK Health Security Agency campus at Porton Down, in my Salisbury constituency, before the House again this evening. I say “again” because 15 years ago, on 22 June 2010, as an eager, newly elected, young MP, I raised the uncertain future of the institution in my first ever Adjournment debate. I did so again on 11 September 2013 and again on 24 June 2015, at the start of my second term as Salisbury’s MP.

In one sense, a lot has happened in the past 15 years, but sadly, in another sense, nothing has happened. The project to relocate to Harlow, in Essex, is apparently no closer to completion, but neither have the highly skilled workers at Porton Down been given any assurances that they can stay put. I know that this matter will concern you, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that a number of residents in your constituency of Romsey and Southampton North, which is adjacent to my constituency, will be working at Porton.

As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in response to my oral question on 13 March, two months ago, this

“has been running around the system so long that is now used in a case study for senior civil servant recruitment.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]

As the House of Commons Library said in a note to me on 22 January this year,

“neither UKHSA nor the Department for Health and Social Care have published an account of this programme to date, nor published any formal reports setting out the current state of the programme.”

The National Audit Office published its report, “Investigation into the UK Health Security Agency’s health security campus programme”, in February last year. That report sets out the key facts on and decision points in UKHSA’s programme, including its history, the causes of the delays and the issues so far at the Harlow site. I will not rehearse all those this evening, but reading the report may be instructive for the Minister.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I remember him bringing the matter before the House before; we have been in the House for the same amount of time, although he is much younger than me. Does he agree that replacing and modernising the UKHSA’s facilities through the programme is crucial to ensuring that the UK has the capabilities to identify, study and respond to the most dangerous pathogens in the world? Perhaps the way forward is to secure changes and to ask the Government to step in to assist the UKHSA to continue the crucial and excellent work that it already does.

[John Glen]

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman for his support this evening, and he anticipates some of the points I will make later on.

I want also to refer to the Public Accounts Committee, which opened an inquiry into the UKHSA health security campus last year. The Committee heard evidence from the outgoing chief executive Professor Dame Jenny Harries and Shona Dunn, the second permanent secretary, but it was unable to publish a full report owing to the Dissolution of Parliament and instead published its conclusions and recommendations in a letter in May last year. There is a lack of clarity over where we are with these plans, and my simple purpose today is to secure the Government’s assessment of where we are now, 10 months into the new Administration.

Since that Adjournment debate in 2010, four general elections have been fought and I have had five years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and seven as a Minister in four roles, but since 2015 I have never been offered any briefing on the future of the facility at Porton and on whether that initial decision, given the events of recent years and a sixfold increase in the costs—rather more than inflation—will be followed through on. As the constituency MP, I am eager to get to the bottom of the matter, and in seeking an update from the Minister this evening—and I certainly do not hold her individually responsible, given that she has only been in post for just over 14 weeks—I do want to seek an understanding about the financial obligations of the programme.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Glen]

I am happy to give way to the Member representing Harlow.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who will know why I am here. Obviously I will sing the merits of relocation to Harlow, but I think we would both agree that we really want a decision on this and to know whether there will be a move or not, because the constituents both of us represent are currently in limbo.

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman who is very gracious in the way he puts over his point. It would be helpful for everyone in both our constituencies and for the country as a whole to know what is happening.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In addition to the HSA, the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is home to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and both do vital work on antimicrobial resistance. Does he know of any work that has been done by the Government to consider the implications for the UK’s AMR research of moving the two institutions apart?

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful for that very helpful intervention, because the hon. Gentleman points out the co-location of DSTL and the UKHSA at Porton, and that is a really important fact. The possibility of sharing category 4 facilities—something that has been resisted sometimes by one party or the other—is a material consideration when trying to mitigate excessive costs.

Last year’s NAO report set out that in February 2022, the programme had a staff team of 92 full-time equivalents based across multiple sites including Porton Down, London and other regional UKHSA centres, working across programme operations, management, delivery and capability, in addition to construction, finance and commercial and leadership teams. In November 2023, there were 69 FTE staff on the programme. The programme team is made up of civil servants and service providers, and has input from colleagues from other parts of the UKHSA.

It is very ironic to me that as I read over about 13 mentions of Porton Down that I have made in this Chamber over the last 15 years, so many of the Ministers who responded are now either retired, deposed or in the other place. I am concerned that the civil service people, for whom I have great respect having worked closely with lots of civil servants, have been blissfully unaccountable to any enduring authority or direction on this, while all of this work has been going on in the background. That just cannot be right.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As one of the ex-Ministers who is still here, perhaps I can contribute in a spirit of helpfulness to the current Minister. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. I was so concerned by this proposal as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that I visited Porton Down and gave a very clear steer—not least when I found, to my huge surprise, that the nursery was being closed, which I thought was the wrong decision. He, like me, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I gave a very clear steer that I was concerned that this move did not represent value for money, that times had changed and that the proposal was in error. I wonder whether the case study that is being presented to officials and the information that comes to Ministers properly reflects known concerns raised by Ministers, which appear to have been routinely ignored.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend; I recall the many conversations that we had on this matter.

How can we be in a situation where £530 million—Public Health England’s initial estimated cost for the whole programme in 2015—became an estimated £3.2 billion in 2023? I am not sure if that is the very latest figure. Of even greater concern to me is the fact that it was estimated in 2015 that the project would be completed by 2021, yet the best estimate now is that it will not be fully operational until 2036 at the earliest, which is 11 years away. That is if the programme remains at Harlow.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I had the great fortune to visit Porton Down with the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Defence Committee. As a research scientist who has worked in category 3 suites, seeing category 4 suites at first hand was quite an eye-opener. I saw the incredible dedication of our scientists, who have served this country incredibly well despite the many attacks that have happened. We definitely need to renovate the labs and have a facility that is secure and that helps to support the jobs of scientists across the country.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to be made aware of the hon. Lady’s visit and of her support for the capabilities that we undoubtedly need in this country.

I will go back to give some context. As I mentioned in the 2010 debate, the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as it was known and as many—certainly my retired constituents—still refer to it locally, plays a crucial role in the life of this country and has done for more than 100 years. I suspect that one reason why it is a massive challenge to deliver this project is that a lot has happened during the considerable time that has elapsed since 2015, much of it unexpected. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, Porton’s sister establishment, DSTL, was instrumental in dealing with the Novichok attack in 2018 in Salisbury. During covid, the established expertise at Porton was critical in the support of our nation during the vaccine development and testing process.

My hypothesis is that while peacetime, desk-based studies in Whitehall may have favoured Harlow as a hub back in 2015—it may also have been a function of the former Chancellor George Osborne’s PPS being the MP for Harlow—the reality of how the actual needs of the country played out in practice has shown beyond doubt that Porton has remained instrumental in delivering translational health research for our nation in the interim. Instead of that group of civil servants challenging themselves in the light of events, it was more convenient, in an environment where political sponsorship had moved on, for them to keep driving forward the Harlow vision, even when the labs needed conversion, the planning process was delayed and the lifespan of Porton proved to underline the resilience of the Wiltshire site.

That was reinforced to me just three years ago in 2022, when the Health and Social Care Secretary, Sir Sajid Javid, came to visit Porton Down alongside Professor Dame Jenny Harries, the chief executive, to open a new groundbreaking facility. The two-storey, 22,000 square foot building was one of two that made up a new £65 million vaccine development and evaluation centre, which was built to help to develop and licence new vaccines and cement the UK as a global leader in testing against future variants of the virus. At the time, the Department’s press release said:

“Technologies like those at Porton Down are vital to tackling both COVID-19 and a broad range of emerging health security threats, and this has been recognised by the government’s…funding to progress research into vaccines to help future-proof the world from diseases.”

At that point, Jenny Harries said:

“It was a pleasure to be able to tour these…world-class facilities, with the Health and Social Care Secretary…which will help further establish the UKHSA and its Porton Down site as a global leader of vaccine testing and variant research in the fight against COVID-19. The work undertaken…will define the UK’s future pandemic response.”

I was left pondering—while obviously bound by the strictures of ministerial collective responsibility not to ask the question—why, if Harlow was the answer, such significant additional, separate, parallel capital investment was being made at Porton. Porton remains a world leader in examining diseases that spread rapidly, including insect-borne diseases such as West Nile fever and malaria. It is a world-class centre for translational research that helps to ensure new discoveries are developed and translated from the mind of the scientist into real benefits in tested medicines for patients.

Porton routinely works with partners to develop tuberculosis vaccines and vaccines for whooping cough, meningitis and anthrax. Porton has the biggest TB group in Europe. It has an aerosol delivery function using specialist equipment and a settled, secure setting established after many generations of proven delivery for our nation. Porton is routinely used to do work for the US Government. It is one of very few centres in the world with the capability and experienced staff to carry out that work.

The conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee last May raised the most serious potential consequence of continued indecision. It said:

“As more time passes with no decision on this critical programme the risk of a gap in service for the UK’s high containment public health laboratories grows, with concerning implications for our health security.”

Given the significant interim capital investment, there needs to be a serious review of what is going on here. We know about the risk to the 2036 Harlow completion date because of this indecision and the runaway costs. We also know that the best option must be defined swiftly. I think that is delivering a phased refurbishment on existing sites at Porton Down and Colindale, as set out by the UKHSA chief executive to the Public Accounts Committee in March, allowing Porton to continue its proven record of delivering world-class research and ensuring no such gap in our health capabilities.

I respectfully ask the Minister, recognising her limited experience of this issue, but respecting very much the office that she carries, whether she can explain to the House this evening how the country can go from an identified need to upgrade the Porton facilities by the then Health Protection Agency at Porton in 2006, to a situation 19 years later where three business cases have been produced by the Public Health England and the UKHSA project team—by up to 92 people—and the programme still has not received full approval. What about the wishes of some 900 world-class scientists working in south Wiltshire, over 90% of whom, when asked previously by their trade union, did not want to move? When will this decision be made? Given their unique skillsets, how will replacements be found for the large proportion who will not want to be relocated?

I urge the Minister to challenge the documents put in front of her and to actively consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has said, given his experience as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and as Secretary of State. Will she consider that, given the investment announced by Sajid Javid three years ago, Porton Down has been equipped to continue to serve the nation far into the future?

Is continuing to pursue the vision of a Harlow hub, with its £3.2 billion price tag and 11-year delivery horizon, throwing good money after bad? We have spent £400 million, and we have £2.8 billion left to find. Effectively, we are clinging to a redundant plan that briefly made sense—just about, although I was never shown or able to see the outline business case 10 years ago—but that no longer truly reflects what we can afford and the realities of this country’s public health and security needs.