Hospice Funding

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that need. As I said earlier, end of life care and its stability as part of the wider system, which is a commissioning role for ICBs, was not addressed by the last Government over 14 years. As part of our 10-year plan, that will be important to do.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

We can all agree that hospices, such as St Barnabas in Lincolnshire, do vital and valued work. I hope we can also all agree that every Government—Labour and Tory—have increased national health spending, for that is simply a matter of fact. I ask the Minister to show a little wisdom in contrition in acknowledging that the national insurance increase that was imposed on charities and hospices has done immense damage. We welcome the funding today—of course we do—but she needs to be straightforward: was she, or any of the Health team, consulted before the Budget about the impact of the NI increase on hospices, health charities, pharmacies and so on? May I advise her to put down the folder and tell us what she really thinks?

[Karin Smyth]

I have scribbled my own note—the right hon. Gentleman says that he “agrees”— but the issue is that his Government did nothing over 14 years to support or make a change. That is why the announcement we are making is so important. I reiterate my earlier point, which I will repeat every time I am at the Dispatch Box: the Conservatives have not read the Darzi report; if they do not agree with the diagnosis, they cannot agree with the solution. That is their fundamental problem.

Puberty-suppressing Hormones

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend demonstrates powerfully why waits of the length that she describes in that case are simply unacceptable and unjustifiable. She also details the real pain that is being experienced by young people who are not being seen by the NHS, and not receiving the care and support they need. That is why I am determined to improve waiting times and quality of care. It is also why those of us in positions of influence or power, or those who have access to the microphone or the pulpit, need to think very carefully about the way that we talk about this group of children and young people, and trans people more generally. It is why headline writers and editors in our media have a responsibility to think carefully about how they exercise their freedoms in the media responsibly—freedoms I strongly support—and create a culture where we are not adding to the harms of that group of children and young people. That is for the exact reasons that my hon. Friend describes with that utterly heartbreaking case.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) about both the tone and content of the Secretary of State’s remarks. I first raised my concerns about the Tavistock clinic back in 2019, when a number of professionals resigned because they were so concerned about what was happening with regard to prescribing. He will know that anyone who raised those issues—I think of Kathleen Stock, for example—has been treated very poorly, and with spite, by some of the militant activists in that field. Although I entirely recognise the tone that the Secretary of State adopts—he is a thoughtful and sensitive man—I must ask him this. He has been clear that the prescribing practice was inappropriate, that people were not given time to give their full and informed consent, and that it was an unacceptable safety risk. Who oversaw that? When were those decisions made? Who made them, and how will they be held to account? Many young lives have been severely damaged.

[Wes Streeting]

As the report into the failures of the Tavistock clinic shows, a whole range of individuals and organisations did not discharge their duty of care appropriately to an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people. I pay tribute to the whistleblowers of the Tavistock and Portman who laid their careers on the line. They were subjected to the worst kinds of attempts to silence whistleblowers, and in some cases to bully them out of the organisation or vilify them. That was not only a disgraceful way to treat good colleagues who were raising legitimate concerns in the right way, but ironically—I have no doubt that many of the people behaving in that way did so with the best of intentions towards that vulnerable group of children and young people—they set back the national conversation about that group of children and young people and undermined confidence in gender identity services. That cannot be a good thing.

I also pay tribute to those journalists who were willing to report on this issue. I pay particular tribute to Hannah Barnes, whose “Newsnight” investigation took some of these issues to a wider audience, and whose journalism on broadcast media and in print showed how we can expose failure, and expose the risks to a wide range of children, young people and adults, in a thoughtful, evidence-based way.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the treatment of other people who have raised concerns in a wide range of contexts in this debate. He mentions Kathleen Stock, and there are others, too. I do not think that has been helpful; in fact, I think it has been actively harmful to having the kind of national conversation we should have more broadly about gender identity and how some women fear their sex-based rights are at risk. If we were able to navigate those issues in a much more thoughtful, considered way, listening to different perspectives and experiences, I feel confident that, despite all the challenges, as a society we could find a way through that not everyone loves, but everyone can live with. We have done that before on same-sex marriage, on sexual orientation and religious freedoms, for example. It is possible, if we are willing to listen, to engage in good faith and to not shout down people raising heartfelt concerns. Perhaps if we engaged in the conversation in a much better way, we would find a better way through as a country.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I would like to place on the record my support for the Bill, which the Government are right to describe as the biggest public health intervention in a generation. As someone who grew up around the NHS, with my first job being at Bolton hospital, I have seen at first hand the huge cost of smoking and vaping in my constituency. In Bolton, smoking claims around 380 lives a year. Across the UK, that number is 80,000, and tobacco-related illnesses put tremendous pressure on the NHS, with smoking responsible for one in four cancer deaths. Indeed, every single minute someone is put in hospital because of smoking. The appointments, the scans, the treatment—it all adds up. Smoking costs the taxpayer over £3 billion each year in healthcare bills.

The tide of public opinion has turned irrevocably. Eight in 10 Greater Manchester adults support ending smoking, according to the Make Smoking History campaign. I suspect that many have had family or friends impacted by smoking-related harms. Five years ago, the previous Government announced their ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030. Despite a stark warning from the Khan review in 2022 that

“without further action, England will miss the smokefree 2030 target by at least 7 years”,

I find it regrettable that the Conservatives did not get round to these literal life-and-death reforms before it was too late to legislate before the general election.

I am delighted that just a few months in we are already delivering on our manifesto pledges. A generational ban on purchasing tobacco for anyone born after 1 January 2009, new regulations for the extension of smokefree areas to include our schools and hospitals, and new restrictions on oral tobacco products such as snus are hugely welcome in our fight against smoking-related illnesses.

The Bill is hugely important, and I will focus the remainder of my remarks on vaping in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) noted, Bolton is regrettably one of the two vaping capitals of the UK, with over 20 vape shops registered per 100,000 people according to reporting in the Bolton News. Vaping can be a genuine aid for those seeking to wean themselves off smoking, but while it is clear that vapes, in combination with behavioural support, can support quitting, the health advice is unambiguous: children and adults who have never smoked should never vape.

What disturbs me is that vaping products are obviously marketed at children. Indeed, a number of vape stores in Horwich and Westhoughton in my constituency are not only garish eyesores but directly associate vapes with sweets and toys in their shop fronts. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues in the Chamber will be familiar with similar stores in their own constituencies. It is clear that bubble gum and candy floss flavours are not aimed at those adults genuinely trying to wean themselves off tobacco. This is not harmless; youth vaping has more than doubled in the past five years, while Bolton council has been told that children as young as 13 are unable to go an hour at school without vaping. Just last Friday, I visited St Catherine’s primary school in Horwich and was shocked to hear children no older than 11 directly raise their concerns around vaping with me. St Joseph’s high school in Horwich, which I had the pleasure of meeting last week here in Parliament, has had to install vape sensors, while the headmaster Tony McCabe has said he has already seen a rise in young people acquiring vapes from the black market. I hope the Minister will consider how to tackle the already expanding black market for these products. That is why I especially welcome the measures in the Bill to provide the Secretary of State with powers to regulate vaping products, including their content, flavour, packaging and product requirements.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about illegal tobacco and other substances. It is really important that we bear down on that illicit trade. Illegal tobacco not only deprives the Exchequer of funds but means that all kinds of other nefarious activities can take place in the shops that sell it. Also, the illegal cigarettes sold do not extinguish. A few years ago in my constituency there was a house fire with fatalities as a direct result of illegal cigarettes.

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I will take assurance from the Minister on that when he winds up.

I place on record my enthusiasm for the separate ban on single-use vapes from June 2025, which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) mentioned. As other Members have noted, not only are they particularly cheap and therefore accessible to young adults, but they are an inefficient use of critical resources, difficult to recycle and frequently littered around the countryside.

By introducing these world-leading reforms, we can create a smokefree generation and break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Prevention is better than cure. As we have heard, smoking is a cause of many premature deaths and much serious ill health. That was why the previous Government introduced legislation to tackle it and restrict access to tobacco purchases for those born after 1 January 2009. This Bill builds on many measures in the previous one.

As we have heard, this is a Bill of two parts: tobacco and vapes. Those two parts have been received differently, a bit like Marmite and chocolate spread—part controversial, part pretty universally liked. The section on smoking and tobacco has proved to be a bit like Marmite—some people have liked it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke eloquently of his passion for stop-smoking measures, his successful campaigning, and the previous Government’s success in reducing rates of smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) spoke eloquently about the balance between libertarianism and choice, and the need for order, societal norms and the protection of others in society. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the dangers of smoking and the difficulties and challenges for people trying to quit.

On the other hand, other Members expressed concern about the Bill. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about how the Secretary of State might use powers relating to outside places where people may smoke. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) shared his concerns about how measures on the age of sale will work in practice. Those will indeed be clunky measures for shopkeepers to try to enforce, and will have an effect on the cohort of individuals who are just either side of the threshold, who will require ID throughout their lives. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke about how that measure will work in Northern Ireland, and although he received some assurances from the Minister, I am not sure that they were completely effective.

Although I confess that I do not like Marmite, it is a free vote this evening for Conservative Members, and I will support the Bill. The Secretary of State said in opening that 350 young people will start smoking today, most of whom will regret it, so why was 1 January 2009 chosen? I appreciate that that was the date in the previous Bill, but why did he choose it for his Bill too?

Let me move on to the area of chocolate spread—the part of the Bill on vaping. I think it was universally welcomed, and was supported by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. It includes measures to tackle vaping among children, on which I have personally campaigned. As others have said, the chief medical officer has been clear that for someone who smokes, vaping may be better, but if they do not smoke, they should not vape. As a Member of Parliament and a children’s doctor, I have been increasingly concerned about the sharp increase in children addicted to vaping and, more recently, to other nicotine products such as pouches. Schoolteachers have reported that children are unable to concentrate, or even complete a whole lesson, without visiting the bathroom to vape.

[Sir John Hayes]

I very rarely disagree with my hon. Friend. She is of course right about vaping, the effect that it has on children and the difficulty that schools have in managing it, as headteachers will no doubt have told Members across the House, but can she really go into the Division Lobby to support the Bill with this nonsense about age? The idea that someone aged 30 could smoke and someone aged 29 could not, and the idea that that could be policed or managed in any practical way, is just nonsensical. It was daft when the last Government introduced it, and it is daft now this Government have done so.

[Dr Johnson]

The challenge is that if we were to ban it altogether, we could risk criminalising people who were already addicted to tobacco products—adults who had made that choice. That is the reason why both present and past Governments put forward a measure to increase the age gradually, but I understand the points that have been made about the difficulties for shopkeepers and others in enforcing it over time.

I return to vaping. Doctors report a growing body of evidence suggesting that children may be having difficulty in school and suffering health problems as a result of vaping. A report from Healthwatch said that 31% of the more than 4,000 under-18s it surveyed were regularly vaping. Nicotine is a powerfully addictive product. Young people are particularly susceptible to it, so it is very important that we protect children from vaping and other nicotine products. After all, vaping is an adult activity; it is apparently designed to help smokers quit. While the industry may argue that the flavours and colours are enjoyed by adults—and they may well be—I struggle to understand why adults would want a vape flavoured like a unicorn milkshake, whatever a unicorn’s milk tastes like. The Healthwatch survey showed that fruit flavours are very popular with children, and the same has been repeated by various teaching unions, the British Medical Association, of which I am a member, Cancer Research UK and even a Government report from last year. I also do not see why an adult stop-smoking device needs to be disguised in the form of a highlighter pen, which could perhaps be hidden in a child’s pencil case, or created in the shape of a children’s cartoon character. Enticing and luring children into a lifetime of unwanted and potentially harmful addiction is immoral.

The Secretary of State is taking powers to regulate the flavours, colours and packaging of vapes, but how will he ensure that he stays one step ahead of an industry whose income depends on a new generation of addicts? He has taken quite extensive powers, which I know is of concern to some hon. and right hon. Members, but how and when does he intend to use them? What support will be given to children who are already addicted to vaping to help them quit?

Finally, while this is a free vote issue, I am pleased on a personal level to see some of the proposals that I put forward on the last Bill being incorporated into this one, particularly on the sponsorship and advertising of vending machines. Whatever our views on this Bill, it is a bold piece of legislation of good intention. It aims to improve the health of our nation and of our children in particular and to reduce smoking and prevent nicotine addiction in the young. It is not clear whether it will work, but we have to hope, for the health of all of us and our children, that it does.

Points of Order

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind all hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of a good debate.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that I have raised in the House the use of crossbows by criminals. These are lethal weapons. The previous Government added to the list of weapons that are banned, and the current Government are implementing those measures. Have you had any notice of a statement being brought to the House by Ministers to respond to the increasingly pressing cries from those who want to see crossbows added to that list of banned weapons?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank Sir John for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I can clarify that we have not had notice of a statement.

Bill Presented

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, Pat McFadden, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Jo Stevens, Lucy Powell and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to require persons with control of certain premises or events to take steps to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism; to confer related functions on the Security Industry Authority; to limit the disclosure of information about licensed premises that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Monday 7 October, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That is a brave submission from the hon. Lady, given the debate in the Chamber yesterday. I certainly will not take lectures from Labour on this legislation. We are bringing it forward because we have looked carefully at the evidence. What is more, we have tempered it so that existing adult smokers will not be affected. If the message from the Labour party is that it wants to ban smoking for adults completely, it should make that argument. We have tempered this carefully to ensure that it only deals with future generations.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for her approach to young people smoking, her determination to deal with illegal tobacco and her crackdown on vaping, which is a menace to young people as these things are sold like an item of confectionery. Will she accept that in doing all those things, she needs to be open minded about how the Bill can be improved? The idea of a rolling age of consent, with the consequence that someone of 35 will be able to buy tobacco but someone of 34 will not and so on, is at best a curiosity and at worst an absurdity.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend and close Lincolnshire neighbour. He knows that on any piece of legislation I will always want to listen to and do business with colleagues. The principle behind this legislation is that these emerging generations will never take up smoking. That is the point.

NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Secretary of State was giving an answer to a question. We do not need all this shouting. People might not agree with the answer, but you have to listen to the answer.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In congratulating my right hon. Friend—my personal friend—on this welcome, excellent statement, may I ask her to forgive the ferocity with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I made the case for NHS dentistry when we met her recently? In that spirit, will she ensure that some of these new dentists come to rural Lincolnshire, where we desperately need good dental care? She has today irrigated the dental desert.

[Victoria Atkins]

I give my very sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend. The House can imagine the advocacy I have received from both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). On reaching rural and coastal areas, as a proud Lincolnshire MP myself I wanted to bring about a set of plans that will address those underserved areas. I am delighted that the plan meets with my right hon. Friend’s approval.

NHS Dentistry

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady has raised an interesting and important point, because, of course, dentists are independent contractors to the NHS, and I have to work with the levers that are available to me. As I have said, we have already invested £1.7 billion to try to help with the recovery, and the House will, I hope, look forward to our dentistry recovery plan when it comes to other ways in which we can improve that. The important point, however, is that because those dentists are independent contractors, we must work with the profession to encourage them back to the NHS to offer the services that we all want to see.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Is not the root of the problem the contracts that the NHS has with dentists? The roots of that, of course, lie with the previous Government, a Labour Government, rather as they do with the GP contracts. Does my right hon. Friend not need to revisit the genesis of this problem, as well as training more dentists here in the UK?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and indeed my friend, my Lincolnshire neighbour, who knows as well as I do the pressures that we face in ensuring that our constituents receive the same quality of care that we expect across England. He was right to draw attention to the—I would argue—badly drafted contract of 2006, but he also touched on the complexity involved in finding systems that would work better.

Draft Health Education England (Transfer of Functions, Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 General Committees

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right. I was due to visit her medical school but, unfortunately, because of illness I could not. I still very much hope to do so. She is right that we need to train more medics domestically, although we have international recruitment. We increased the number of doctors we train by 1,500—a 25% increase to 7,500 per year. I urge her to wait just a little longer for the long-term workforce plan, which will set out our requirements for the future and how we go about ensuring that we fill the places and get medics in training. I am conscious that doctors are one of those groups.

Both of my right hon. Friends talked about planning, which is very much at the heart of the regulations. Their intention is to more closely align workforce planning, which is currently the statutory function of Health Education England, with the service and financial planning responsibilities of NHS England. That will enable service, workforce and finance planning to be properly integrated in one place. Nationally and regionally, it will build on the work that has been done to develop the NHS people plan. It will also help to drive reforms in education and training further and faster so that employers can recruit the health professionals needed to provide the right care to patients in the future.

Merging Health Education England with NHS England will simplify the national system, leading the NHS to end the separate lines of accountability that exist for the two bodies. Currently, Health Education England is responsible for workforce planning, education and training, but NHS England is responsible for culture, retention, international recruitment, workforce and leadership. Uniting those functions will help us ensure a joined-up and long-term view of what our NHS workforce needs for the future.

I pay tribute to Health Education England’s leadership and staff throughout the organisation’s 10-year existence. It has played a hugely effective role in the delivery of growth in the number of health professionals trained in England. It has promoted the creation of new roles, such as nursing associates, and spearheaded reforms to professional training workforce growth; record numbers now work within our NHS. It was hugely flexible and effective during the pandemic, including by supporting the deployment of students to the frontline at critical moments.

I am delighted that as of 1 April this year, Dr Navina Evans will become the chief workforce, training and education officer in the new NHS England. Sir David Behan, the chair of Health Education England, was appointed as a non-exec director of NHS England on 1 July. Those appointments are both important, because they will ensure that there continues to be excellent national leadership of NHS education and training.

I know there will be concern in some quarters that the changes pose a risk of budgets being used for other purposes. However, we have put in place a number of measures, including ministerial oversight, to ensure that that will not be the case. I am happy to elaborate on that later if required. Very briefly, we will include objectives on the workforce within NHS England as part of the NHS England mandate. We will continue to monitor and track expenditure on education and training with, as I said, a ministerial chaired board to provide that important ministerial oversight and governance of the workforce in NHS England.

Health Education England and NHS England already work closely together to ensure that the NHS has the workforce that it needs for the future. As I said in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet earlier, we have commissioned NHS England to develop that long-term workforce plan for the next five, 10 and 15 years’ time. In effect, that plan will look at the mix, the number of staff required, and the actions and reforms that will be necessary across our NHS to reduce supply gaps and—importantly—improve retention.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am sorry to have missed the beginning of the Minister’s remarks, but I want to make a case for dentistry in all this. Given that the aim of the draft regulations is to align the workforce more with local need, and that they are designed to improve care standards and workforce availability, will he look at the dental deserts such as Lincolnshire, where we cannot straight-forwardly access NHS dental care? There are more dentists in London than one could shake a stick at—there are even more than there are barbers—yet in Lincolnshire it is very hard to obtain a dentist. Would he look at that in terms of the strategic change that he has described?

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is right to raise dentistry, because, as he rightly points out, there are dental deserts across the country. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), is looking closely at dentistry, including workforce and supply and the use of a skill mix. Of course, it does not have to be a dentist, as others who have similar qualifications can do a lot of work that a dentist does, including on children. My hon. Friend will publish a dental plan in the coming months, and I hope that addresses my right hon. Friend’s point.

In conclusion, the merger will continue to build on Health Education England’s great work, putting education and training at the heart of service planning for the long term. The draft regulations will simplify the architecture of our NHS at national and regional level and ensure it has the workforce that it needs now and in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am, as was mentioned, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage. The group is now up and running. We had an enormously well-supported meeting in Portcullis House last Thursday. I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, and share their belief that the recent data relating to cardiovascular problems, which is increasing in volume, is of enough concern to warrant an inquiry on safety. As I have said, the big Hallett inquiry on covid-19 will cover a lot of this ground, but it will not report for many years. In the meantime, people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health and the risks and rewards.

As well as being chairman of the APPG, I have taken an interest in the subject for about a year, and produced a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and I hope to produce another, which will have its Second Reading next month. Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by covid 19 vaccines. I have spoken to some of the bereaved; indeed, I spoke to the gentleman referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—the gentleman who attended our meeting on Thursday, and whose wife was a journalist in Newcastle. I have seen with my own eyes the suffering of people who are bereaved or still suffering adverse reactions.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), in introducing the debate, did not have much to say about the people who we know have suffered death or serious injury as a result of the vaccines. My hon. Friend showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture—the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA. Has he, for example, looked at what has been happening in Germany? The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On 20 July, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination. That also reflected a finding that it published earlier in the year, in which the institute tried to raise the alert that one in 5,000 vaccinated people experienced a serious side effect, such as heart muscle inflammation. It said that, statistically, every 10th person must expect a severe consequence from having a course of three or four vaccines. The institute uses the World Health Organisation definition of a “serious adverse event”, meaning one that results in hospitalisation or is life-threatening or life-changing. After a course of four doses, the risk of a report to its system of a serious adverse effect is one in 1,250. That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.

Is it not interesting that the number of adverse reports referred to the institute is far fewer than the number of adverse reports that led to the 1976 swine flu vaccine being withdrawn? Some hon. Members may recall that, in 1976, the President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was panicked by swine flu into organising a vaccination campaign. When reports emerged of suspected adverse reactions, including heart attacks and Guillain-Barré syndrome, and there were 53 reported deaths, people began to worry about the safety of the vaccine. The Government halted that mass vaccination programme in December of that year. In that case, the Government acted on far fewer adverse events than we have talked about in this debate and decided that, given the balance of risk and reward, it was too risky to continue with the vaccination programme. Let us look at the facts and not just be beholden to the MHRA. If this were a debate about the MHRA, I would have masses of material on it.

The Government seem to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the deputy chief medical officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective, but they are not perfectly safe, and there is a question about whether they are effective, but that is for another debate. The fact that they are not perfectly safe has now been admitted by the Government. Indeed, the UK Health Security Agency has issued “A guide to the COVID-19 autumn booster”—you may have seen a copy of it, Sir Roger. It requests that people get another booster from their GP. Unfortunately, the cover letter from the NHS makes no reference to any risks associated with the vaccine, but if one looks at the document included in the envelope, it talks about serious side effects. It says,

“Cases of inflammation of the heart (called myocarditis or pericarditis) have been reported very rarely after both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These cases have been seen mostly in younger men and within several days of vaccination. Most of the people affected have felt better and recovered quickly following rest and simple treatments.”

It then states:

“You should seek medical advice”.

What it does not state is what happens to those people who do not recover. That is what I will concentrate on in the remainder of my remarks. Those people, if they are disabled to the extent of 60% or more, may be eligible for payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They might get £120,000. That scheme, however, is not fit for purpose, because its description of disability does not necessarily apply to autoimmune conditions such as those suffered as a consequence of covid-19 vaccine damage. And what about all of those people who are only 59% disabled? There is no financial help for them and, even more worryingly for many, no specific medical help.

The Government refuse to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although they have set up long covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored. I have asked parliamentary questions about this, but I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why there are no clinics for those victims of vaccine damage. As a result of the Government’s behaviour, victims are increasingly telling their loved ones, neighbours and friends about their circumstances, which is leading to a much lower rate applications for booster vaccines. That is happening because the Government cannot suppress the information that ordinary people are sharing with one another, even though there is very little on this topic in the mainstream media.

Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them. I am not anti-vax—I had my first two vaccines—but from all that I have seen and know about this, the increase in boosters is counterproductive for many and dangerous for some. We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The thing to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of vaccines and vaccination per se. Vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, but these vaccines are qualitatively different. Science matters, but much matters more.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.

Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on YouTube—I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film—and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all covid-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am referring to the covid vaccine, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I take my hon. Friend’s point, but there is no evidence that those deaths were caused by the covid vaccine. Let me acknowledge and pass on my sympathies to the very small number of people for whom vaccines may not have worked as intended, and who may have suffered an adverse reaction from vaccines.

I turn to vaccine safety. All vaccines used in the UK covid-19 vaccine programme are safe. In the UK we have some of the highest safety standards in the world. The MHRA is globally recognised for high standards of quality, safety and medicines regulation. Each covid-19 vaccine candidate is assessed by teams of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis. There are extensive checks and balances at every stage of vaccine development. It is only once each potential vaccine has met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the MHRA that it will be approved for use.

It is also important to stress that the surveillance of vaccine safety and adverse reactions does not stop once a vaccine has been approved. The MHRA and the UK Health Security Agency constantly review a wide range of available data on the safety of vaccines, including UK and international reports of adverse reactions.

[Sir John Hayes]

People outside the House will not know that although the Minister has been in her job a relatively short time, she is a remarkably dedicated and diligent person. No Minister is more likely or determined than she is to get to the facts when looking at the international data. Will the Minister give the assurance that she will consider all the information available, including that international data, when she draws conclusions about the content of this debate and the cases that have been made by many of my constituents and others?

NHS Dentistry

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Where are we to begin with this? We have been here before, time after time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for bringing us this debate. We have discussed this many times and we had a debate in Westminster Hall in the summer, but nothing has really moved on. Nothing at all seems to have changed.

I want to read out part of a letter I received from a constituent, and this is typical of the problem we are facing. I have received even worse horror stories, to the extent that one local dentist told me that they may close in the next few weeks. That is typical and symptomatic of this bigger problem. My constituent said:

“I wanted to take the time to get in touch with you over my experience of getting on the books for an NHS dentist. I have had no luck and have had to have private dental visits. I have luckily not had to have any treatment as I would not be able to afford it. I have reached out to a few dental practices in the area…to be told that they are only taking on children on the NHS.”

That is typical of the experience of everyone in this Chamber. I exhort Conservative Members to stop dealing with this in the abstract, as though it is only affecting individual Members of Parliament; it is a collective issue, and it needs a thorough review and a thorough push by the Government. It is not in the abstract. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to covid. I completely accept that covid had an impact on the provision of dental services—it hothoused an already challenging situation—but dental services in all our constituencies were under huge pressure before covid. Let us not pretend that covid was the be all and end all of the dental health problem.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are systemic problems, part of which goes back to the contracts agreed with dentists donkey’s years ago, under the Labour Government—the same applies in respect of GPs. That genesis of the problem was there, but we then face the problem of training too few dentists, which I think we do, and the problems in particular parts of the country, including, Lincolnshire, which is among the worst affected. My constituents cannot get an NHS dentist and they need to have one. That particularly applies to young people and children. He is absolutely right on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Like other colleagues, I have spoken out many times in this House about dentists, including in the debate earlier this year. Indeed, the very first letter that I wrote as an MP back in 2019 was about the dental contract, which was brought to my attention by one of the dental practices in Barnstaple. I cannot stress the severity of the dental desert that is now Devon, with not a single NHS practice accepting new patients. Not a week goes by without correspondence from a constituent in distress. As William Shakespeare himself said in “Much Ado About Nothing”:

“For there was never yet a philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently.”

And nor should they. It really is time that something is done. I thank the current Health and Social Care Secretary for recognising dentistry within the ABCD and that there is a problem. I thank, too, the current Minister’s predecessor for at least taking some steps towards redressing the issue of the contract, which is clearly the undermining problem. However, that is a long-term solution. The steps outlined there and the training of more dentists are not going to address the current situation.

Only last weekend, a friend, who was already registered at a dentist, told me that they had actually managed to get a dental appointment. When they got there, they were told that they needed to see the dental hygienist. They went to book an appointment and were told that there was a six-month wait to see the hygienist, who then told them that they needed to have a second appointment to do the other half of their mouth. They went to book, only to be given another six-month wait before they could see the hygienist, so it took a full year. As they said, it is a bit like cleaning the Forth bridge. This is not how our constituents’ teeth should be treated.

My concern extends to my younger constituents. The No.1 reason youngsters under 18 are admitted to hospital in my patch is linked to their teeth. At a time when our hospitals are under such duress anyway, could we not do something to help to ensure that people are able to see a dentist?

My frustration is extended by the fact that I have now managed to secure and find two separate methods for getting dentists into North Devon. Although I do not mind doing this for my constituents—indeed I welcome doing anything I can to help my constituents—I do not quite understand why it is coming down to us as individual MPs to deliver the dentistry that our constituents so desperately need.

Less than 13% of the covid catch-up funding in Devon was spent because there is no one to deliver the treatment. My NHS dentists who train up new dentists at the nearest dental schools advise that these youngsters do not wish to remain in NHS dentistry. We need to address that. Those who train to become dentists under the public purse should have to serve as NHS dentists for a certain period, but they wish to go on to do cosmetic dentistry, which pays much better. The good people of North Devon in the main are not looking for cosmetic dentistry. We are much more interested in fillings and dentures and in ensuring that our young people go on to have good-quality teeth when they get past the age of 10. I urge the Minister to push forward some of these changes, and I hope the new team remain in place long enough to do so.

We need dentists on buses or similar to get to remote rural communities and into schools, to enable every child to have the dental check-up they deserve and to provide emergency access for those people who have failed to secure a dental appointment—not because they have not tried or because of covid, but simply because there is not a dentist available to see them and many people cannot afford to pay for the treatment that they now need after waiting so long.

[Sir John Hayes]

My sons, who are now 21 and 18, have access to NHS dentistry, as I have, at the excellent Fen House dental practice in Spalding, but many of my constituents’ children do not, as my hon. Friend says. She talks about dental deserts in rural areas, and Lincolnshire is among the worst of those, with 38 dentists per 100,000 population. She is right both about young people and about the particular problems of rural areas. The Minister, for whom I have high regard, needs to give us very firm answers to those questions and a clear plan for what the Government intend to do about them. There is a plethora of private dentists, but too few NHS dentists.

[Selaine Saxby]

My right hon. Friend’s comments are wise, as always.

On international dentists, during the first lockdown, I had an Indian dentist come and meet me privately, and I forwarded that information back to the Department; apparently, there are many, many Indian dentists who would be delighted to come. We would welcome them to North Devon with open arms—indeed, we would welcome dentists from anywhere into North Devon, such is the need. I urge the Minister to look at what else can be done to speed up access for those people who are well trained internationally to come over and look at our teeth.

I will finish by reminding hon. Members how important our teeth are. I ask the Minister to do anything that can be done to help both our youngsters and those people who have struggled to see a dentist, so that we can again say that the dentist will see us now.