Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I am incredibly sorry to hear about Cate’s experience. We want to ensure that women receive safe, personalised and compassionate maternity care and that women with the condition are supported. That is why we have asked the college to look at the guidance. I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is clearly a need to consider vasa praevia as part of antenatal care. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) set the scene very well and the Minister responded in a good fashion. This issue, which the hon. Member was right to highlight, is also an issue in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister share what is going forward here with representatives at the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. As he knows, I am always keen to ensure we share good practice across the United Kingdom so that his constituents, like mine, can benefit. We will work through the usual processes to ensure that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

We are absolutely committed to urgent treatment centres, which play a vital role in supporting patients, especially during periods of high demand. I understand that this is temporary, and that the centre is running a pilot. I know that my hon. Friend will work closely with his local integrated care board to ensure that it serves his constituency adequately.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T5. There are 153,000 people in the United Kingdom living with Parkinson’s, and one in 137 will be diagnosed during their lifetimes. There are 18,000 new cases every year, 4,200 of them in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time we had a Parkinson’s charity, not just for England but for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well? As I always say, let us do it better together.

Women’s Health Strategy

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he does in this area. He does an excellent job and makes an excellent point. I do not know the detailed answer to that question—it is not directly my area—but I am very happy to make sure that we write to him.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers. The women’s health survey for Northern Ireland closes tomorrow. Through it, the Department of Health back home is hoping to have a greater understanding of how government fails women. The results of this Northern Ireland-wide project will ensure the Department will be able to find the areas that are lacking, in particular endometriosis support. Will the Minister make contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss the health strategy and to share the results and the data, so that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly back home can work better together to make women’s health better across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Karin Smyth]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, I think the health needs of women in Northern Ireland and the waiting lists there are particularly problematic, so finding out anything our Department can to do support or share learning across the United Kingdom is a personal commitment of mine. I will absolutely make sure that we do that. I am happy to meet, talk or even visit, which I always like doing.

Medicinal Cannabis

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Thursday 30th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. As he said, there are many hon. Members from both sides of the House representing constituents affected by the issue across the United Kingdom who would have liked to be here today. Obviously, health is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about his constituents, and other colleagues talked about theirs. I agree with him. My words have been repeated back to me, so I do not need to say them again. This is an important issue for everyone in the Chamber and those who are listening in, as we all want to support people who are in very difficult circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman raised some key issues, which I will address. He said that landlords and the police are unaware of the legality surrounding prescribed medicinal cannabis. I encourage him to take that up with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I understand that the Home Office has notified all police forces about the change to the law, and guidance has been issued to summarise what that means.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned electronic prescribing, which has been in operation for schedule 2 and 3 controlled drugs in NHS primary care settings since 2019. I am afraid there are no current plans to extend that to private clinics at this time.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about an observational study with a small patient cohort. I am afraid that it would not produce results as robust as a randomised control trial, which is the gold standard for clinical trials, nor would it add to the current evidence base. It would not provide results suitable to inform routine clinical or NHS commissioning decisions, because there would be no way to compare the findings with what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. I will come on to clinical trials in more detail, but let us be clear about the problem we face, the challenge faced by all of us involved in this debate and the challenge faced by children, many of whom have been mentioned today.

Of course, we listen to Members of this House, and to patients, parents and families, who say that these medicines are safe and should be available. We must ensure the safety and effectiveness of all medicines. The benefits should outweigh any potential harm and, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, clinicians must have that assurance and clarity, too.

There are currently only two cannabis-based medicines in the world with marketing authorisations or licence. They are—I hope I do not stumble over them too—Sativex, for the treatment of muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis, and Epidyolex, for treatment related to two rare forms of epilepsy and tuberous sclerosis complex. Those medicines show that it is possible to develop cannabis-based treatments that have been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy. The evidence generated on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can enable the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence to recommend them for use in the NHS.

The medicines we are talking about today are unlicensed, which means that they have not been assessed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Indeed, they have not been assessed or granted market authorisations by any medicines regulator anywhere in the world. However, as has been noted, in 2018 the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, enabled the prescription of unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use. That provided a lawful route to these medicines for prescriptions for individual patients who were not benefiting from standard treatments and were not part of clinical trials, while limiting the ability to prescribe to specialist doctors. That came on the heels of the review by Professor Dame Sally Davies, then the chief medical officer, which found enough evidence of benefit to recommend that cannabis-based medicine should be moved out of schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

For epilepsy, that evidence was mainly in relation to cannabidiol, also known as CBD, rather than products containing the psychoactive compound tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. The review did not provide evidence to support routine prescribing or funding of those medicines on the NHS, which the previous Government should have made clear at the time. Before we see routine prescribing of these unlicensed medicines, the NHS must have greater assurance on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at a population level. I am not a clinician—we are all here as politicians—and it is right that prescribing any medicine or treatment is a clinical decision, whether it is done on the NHS or privately. It is not for us to influence those decisions, so I cannot comment on individual cases.

We want to see more medicines approved by the MHRA and available on the NHS. We inherited a broken system, and it will take time to fix that failure, but the Chancellor has made an in-year investment in the NHS to fill the black hole that we inherited and prevent our having to cut back on services. That means that, more than ever, the NHS must account for every penny that it spends and make difficult decisions on what treatments are made available.

The NHS must get the best possible value for its investment in medicines and consider the cost-effectiveness of treatments to ensure that resources are used efficiently. For that to be fair, medicines or treatments initiated privately would not routinely be prescribed by the NHS unless the requested treatment was already approved under existing policies, which unlicensed medicinal cannabis is not, or when there are individual, exceptional circumstances. That remains the case even if privately funded treatment has been shown to have clinical benefit for an individual patient. This is the current NHS policy for all treatment initiated and prescribed privately, and it is not specific to medicinal cannabis.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. A constituent of her colleague, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), is in the Gallery today. Her young boy, Ben, is receiving Bedrolite and Bedica, which are both proven to assist him in having a 98% reduction in fits. The same thing happens to my young constituent, wee Sophia, and to many others as well, including Charlie, the constituent of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). If there is a proven evidential base, which there quite clearly is, should it not be part of the evidential base for NICE to ensure that all these medications are taken on board?

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to the research.

As we have heard, and as I recognise, fewer than five patients have accessed these medicines on the NHS, so access is truly exceptional. The testimony of the children and families accessing these treatments privately—often at great personal cost, as we have heard this afternoon—is truly heartbreaking. I am sure we can all agree that all Government spending on health must be evidence-based, and colleagues are seeking to ensure that that is the case.

If we are to see more cannabis-based medicines routinely available on the NHS, we need more research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, also known as the NIHR, and the MHRA are there to support manufacturers and researchers to develop new medicines and design quality studies. I strongly encourage the manufacturers of those products to invest in research to prove that they are safe and effective and meet the rigorous standards that we rightly expect for all medicines. They should engage with the NIHR and the MHRA on clinical research and medicines licensing processes. That is key in providing doctors with the confidence to prescribe cannabis-based products in the same way that they use any other licensed medicines recommended for use on the NHS, but we are not waiting for industry to respond to patient voices.

The NIHR and NHS England have recently confirmed more than £8.5 million in funding for clinical trials to investigate whether cannabis-based medicines are effective in the treatment of drug-related epilepsies. As I said when we were in opposition, and as has been highlighted today, action in this space is vital. Epilepsy is a terrible disease, and it can be life-limiting in the most serious cases.

We also know that although epilepsy is a fairly common neurological condition, affecting 1% to 2% of the population, about 30% of cases will sadly have seizures that are resistant to current treatments, so it is absolutely right that the NIHR and NHS England are pioneering truly world-first trials that will investigate the safety and effectiveness of CBD and THC in adults and children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. The trials will be co-led by experts from University College London and Great Ormond Street hospital and will look to recruit around 480 patients from across the UK. The study details are published on the NIHR website, and I understand that it will publish further details soon.

Further funding has also been awarded to the University of Edinburgh to investigate the efficacy of CBD in patients with neuropathic pain due to chemotherapy. Those are two examples of the type of research that we desperately need in this area of medicine, and a further 28 studies looking at cannabis-based medicines have been approved by the MHRA since 2018. It is an emotive and complex debate, but the clinical trials give me encouragement that there is a way forward. If the evidence supports it, we will see more cannabis-based medicines approved by the regulators and recommended by NICE. That is the only way we will see the evidence base improved and give clinicians the confidence to prescribe.

To conclude, the hon. Member for Strangford has brought this debate forward with his customary good faith and compassion.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will take another intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry. I am not intervening just for the heck of it; I just want a wee bit of clarification. I welcome the fact that the Minister is referring to the trials, and how long they are. I ask the Minister, very quickly: how long will it be before they are complete? Also, I asked the Minister beforehand if she would agree to a meeting with the hon. Member for South Ribble and his constituent just to clarify the matter and take forward the case for a wee bairn. Those are my two asks.

[Karin Smyth]

I cannot answer the question about trials and research directly because, obviously, trials are run by the specialists at NIHR, in the usual way, and I am sure that the request for meeting has been heard. It would probably not be with me, but I am sure the officials have heard it and that the hon. Gentleman will have a response.

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for reading out my contribution and highlighting how proactive we are being, only seven months since forming the new Government. I am proud that the trials that we are looking to do are world firsts. No other country in the world is taking the same action to prove that the medicines are safe and effective. I know it will not come as much consolation to those families who are at the end of their tether with talk of processes, debates and regulations. I also know it may not feel like it, based on some of the things I have said today, but I think there is a way forward. There may be some light at the end of the tunnel, and this Government will do what we can to support NHS England and the NIHR to get the trials done.

Hospice Funding

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have allocated an extra £12 billion in this year for the health and care sector. The full allocation to cover the entire area of health and social care will be announced in the new year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome the money that the Government are setting aside. I thank the Minister and the Government for that announcement, but what discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues to secure exemptions from national insurance contribution hikes for hospice workers? I think of Marie Curie—I spoke about that charity yesterday in Westminster Hall, and the Minister probably has a Marie Curie in her constituency. We know what that charity does. Unlike the mainstream NHS, it will not be exempted, yet it carries out the end of life care that the NHS simply cannot provide. Further, what help will be provided to carers in the community? The withdrawal of their service would leave the care system decimated.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about carers and their support. We made announcements about that in the Budget, and we will make more general announcements about allocations in the new year.

National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Members know, I am the last person —when I am called, the debate is almost over.

Will the Minister confirm whether consideration has been given to the fact that the rise in national insurance contributions will not affect the NHS as a whole, as the block grant for us in Northern Ireland will cover it? However, GP practices in my constituency of Strangford will suffer, and unlike high street businesses or manufacturing, they cannot increase prices to cover that impending rise, leaving practices with no option other than to reduce hours in order to stay solvent. Does the Minister agree that this is the last thing already overstretched GP practices need, and will she commit to take this issue back to the Treasury for reconsideration as it relates to healthcare businesses such as GPs, dentists and pharmacies?

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, health and social care is a devolved issue. We will continue to work closely with all the devolved areas, because we think that that is important, unlike the last Labour Government—the last Conservative Government. [Laughter.] I slipped there—I almost got through.

We absolutely understand the precarious nature of general practice and, in particular, I understand the really serious issues around health and social care in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he makes a good case for the sector. We want to ensure that it supports people in Northern Ireland with the good primary and community care they deserve.

NHS Winter Readiness

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate and hon. Members for taking part.

We have all just rushed from the main Chamber and I think I am the only person here who has come out enthused and excited after what we heard about the massive support offered—particularly for the NHS. It is the first Labour Budget delivered after the 14 years of the coalition and the Tory party’s time in power, and it lays the foundations for fixing our economy.

Just in case people did not clock all the figures, there will be £22.6 billion in day-to-day extra spending on the health budget, including a £3.1 billion increase in the capital budget, £1 billion of which helps address the backlogs of repairs that have been allowed to fester over the past 14 years. There is also an additional £1.5 billion for beds, new capacity for diagnostic tests, surgical hubs and diagnostic centres, to address the key point made by the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). Let us take some of that funding and not just stop the decline but fix the foundations, setting the path for the next 10 years, as we have clearly articulated in the few weeks that we have been in government. When I speak to my constituents in Bristol South, they are most concerned about the NHS spending every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely, properly and where it needs to be focused. That is why we have concentrated on our three shifts and launched this national conversation—I hope everyone takes part.

We all know the problems, and that is what Lord Darzi helped us address. We also know that winter is a difficult time for our health and care system. Although we cannot predict the severity of the weather, we can predict much of the activity, we know what is likely to hit us most of the time, and we can certainly plan better. I remember working on the issue as a NHS manager back in the day, across primary, community, and secondary care, as well as with ambulance services and local authorities. A systems response is needed, and it is important that we are all involved in preparing and planning.

I also remember just how demoralising it was for staff in the early 2000s, coming into work every day to fight fires and sort out the awful trolley waits—not to mention how unacceptable that was for patients and families. The point about the impact on staff’s mental health and morale was well made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I also saw, and was proud to be part of, the changes we made under that Labour Government to end those trolley waits, and we will do that again. That is what Lord Darzi’s report shone a searing spotlight on, including the chronic lack of capital investment that has put many hospitals into a perpetual bed crisis, particularly during peak periods such as winter cold snaps.

While we have inherited a broken NHS, it is not beaten. As we have just heard from the Chancellor, this Government have taken the first steps towards fixing the annual crisis with new capital investment. However, one Budget cannot undo the last 14 years of failure, so while we fix the foundations we are also mitigating the immediate risks. At the very least, going into this winter we will be better prepared than we were last winter. That is because the managers in the NHS will be preparing for winter rather than planning for strikes, which is what they had to do the last three years—already a significant improvement.

The health service does face challenges on all fronts, and the figures are sobering. We have heard some of them today. In September, provisional statistics showed that almost one in 10 A&E patients waited over 12 hours to be admitted, transferred or discharged. The mean category 2 response time in September stood at about 36 minutes—around double the NHS constitutional standard. I recently attended a meeting where officials highlighted the number of attendances requiring admissions are already up by 1.8% in September compared to 2023, which is continuing to place increased pressure of patient flow. Those are the results of deep structural issues in the NHS that will not be fixed overnight. But work is already under way to rebuild resilience and manage pressures across the health and care system this winter.

I will come on to the specific work being done, but I assure hon. Members that the Government are taking the issue extremely seriously. I am already meeting senior leaders in NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency every two weeks to ensure that the risks can be identified quickly and that pressures are managed effectively. Once the peak winter period hits, the meetings will move weekly and include the Secretary of State.

Local NHS systems are best placed to determine how to respond to issues in their local area. That is why NHS England has worked with local systems to ensure robust winter plans are in place at a local level. As someone who knows exactly what is involved in that planning, I pay tribute to the staff for their skill, motivation and commitment to protecting every patient this winter.

[Jim Shannon]

There is no better choice the Government can make than committing that money to the NHS—we all welcome that. Anybody who does not would be insane. I always try to be constructive in my contributions. I asked about staffing and made the suggestion to retain students wherever they do their training. Sometimes they come to the end of it and go somewhere like Australia or New Zealand to get a job. Instead of that, if Government were to consider a bursary-type system to retain the staff, I think we would be able to address some of the pressure that we have.

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to staffing to address some of those points. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about staff recruitment and retention, which is a key part of our future look at the system.

On winter planning, the Government should not be micromanaging people in local systems as they do their job. Rather, we need to focus our efforts on where they are needed the most. Notwithstanding the excellent work of individual staff, let me repeat: the NHS is broken. None of us should underestimate how difficult this winter could be, but we are taking immediate steps to cushion the blow. First, we have set out our national winter planning priorities to NHS systems, local authorities and social care providers to support operational resilience over the coming months. Secondly, we are standing up the winter operating function seven days a week to respond to pressures in real time.

Thirdly, we are expanding the operational pressures escalation levels framework to give us a clearer picture of what is happening on the ground in all our systems. The framework uses comprehensive data to keep track of hospital pressures, and this year we are expanding its scope to mental health, community care and 111. Fourthly, we are continuing to support systems that are struggling the most through the urgent and emergency care tiering programme. Those are direct interventions to help systems get back on their feet and make the necessary improvements in performance.

Fifthly, we are providing targeted, clinically-led support to 19 of the most pressured hospital sites across the country, to help long waits in A&E and avoidable admissions over winter. Those measures are in addition to the aforementioned meetings that I hold with NHS England and UKHSA every fortnight. I am chairing every one of those meetings to ensure that we identify risks as soon as they arise, while supporting NHS England to mitigate them.

The party of the hon. Member for North Shropshire has called on the Government to set up a winter taskforce to prepare for an NHS winter crisis. Some might describe what we are doing as a taskforce; I actually think that is my job and the Secretary of State’s job, which, as I have outlined, is why we meet regularly with NHSE. I know that the hon. Member and others are sincere in their efforts to be constructive. I am happy to take away any specific suggestions about what we are not doing to help the NHS, because we all want the system to work well.

Medicines

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

This evening, I am standing in for my hon. Friend the public health Minister, who could not be here. I might offer to stand in again, such has been the rare outbreak of unanimity across this House. I know from my own experience in the sector that that is often the case with public health measures, as so much work is done in the background, and there is broad agreement on the need for prevention and the great work that has been done before. I thank Members, particularly the Opposition spokespeople, for their support this evening and their comments, which are testament to the work done by officials and by the previous Administration to get us to this point. The consultation was very well received.

I support the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), about recognising World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide, particularly among men, is something that has affected most families—most of us, I think—and it has certainly affected many people in this House, so the hon. Member is right to raise those issues. He asked about training, and I can confirm that training and data reporting requirements will be attached to this measure. That training will be required to meet some broad objectives, including the safe administration of naloxone, safe storage, and how to train someone else to handle and administer it safely. Training on its use is already well established in most parts of the country alongside naloxone provision, and each product has its own established training set out by the manufacturer. I have heard the professional points that the hon. Member has raised, and if he has any further requirements, my hon. Friend the public health Minister would be happy to write to him.

Other excellent points were made about keeping this issue under review, which we absolutely will be doing. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) made her points well, and they are now on the record. The Government will be looking to work on our prevention strategy across all Departments—including the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Education—to ensure that we take a preventive, public health-led approach to this issue. I also thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who has brought his expertise in Northern Ireland into this House for this debate. I am sure this issue will come back before the House in the future.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I asked a question—which the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) has reminded me of—about ensuring that medical staff who have the expertise to administer naloxone, but do so outside of their job, are covered and that there is no comeback against them. Could the Minister answer that question?

[Karin Smyth]

I understand that there are some concerns about that issue, and we will make sure that the hon. Member receives a full answer from my hon. Friend the public health Minister.

In short, these changes will widen access to life-saving medicine. I am sure hon. Members will agree that any death from an illicit drug is tragic and preventable, so I am pleased that we are taking this step and that we have the support of the House this evening for reducing drug-related deaths. On that basis, I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these important regulatory changes, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 29 July, be approved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the separation of babies and their parents at that time is not acceptable, and about the shocking state of the estate, as we have just heard. We will look at the findings of the NHS review very quickly, and I will be happy to get back to her on those specific points.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. This issue is clearly not just about accommodation; it is also about providing physical and emotional help for mothers who have been through traumatic circumstances, emotionally and physically. What will be done along those lines to ensure that mothers and babies have all the help they need?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about mental health support in that critical period. We will absolutely make sure that is looked at.

Health Services: Rural Areas

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I am aware of the issues facing the south-west and, when in Opposition, I spoke in the local media about some of the ambulance challenges. I am not aware of those reports, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, I will happily look into the issue and get back to him.

We also recognise the additional cost of providing services in rural areas, for example in travel and staff time. That is why the funding formula used by NHS England to allocate funds to integrated care boards includes an element to better reflect needs in some rural, coastal and remote areas.

The NHS faces significant challenges. It needs fundamental reform. The Prime Minister is personally committed to resetting the UK Government’s relationship with devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I echo the Prime Minister’s words today about our commitment to rural constituencies across the entire country and I hope we can work with hon. Members from across the House, including the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome the Minister’s clear commitment to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and particularly to Northern Ireland. Let me declare an interest: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union. I know that the Ulster Farmers Union back home, in conjunction with the NFU here, has been trying to work with the health service and with all those with responsibility in this area on the issue of suicides. Farmers mostly work on their own and suffer from anxiety and depression. They face pressures from finance and pressures from the bureaucracy that exists in farming. I know the Minister is compassionate and understanding—I mean that honestly. When it comes to addressing that issue, does she think that it must be done in conjunction with the farmers unions? Trying to work together to make things better must be a step in the right direction.

[Karin Smyth]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I shall certainly ask my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that. His point is extremely well made. I know his constituency in Northern Ireland very well. Let me say that we are very committed to working with hon. Members across the House to share ideas. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has put forward more ideas about how that can happen. I do not promise to implement all of those things, but I will certainly look at them. We want to work very closely across all jurisdictions so that we can make progress for all our constituents to improve the health outcomes across the four nations of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

rose—

House of Commons Financial Plan and Draft Estimates

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful for that intervention. After I visited a couple of years ago, I did a report in my local newspaper on that very subject. There is great interest in our cities, regions and rural areas in some of the skills that have been lost. We can see when we visit those facilities—I remember seeing it in Sheffield—that in the past people could demonstrate pride in their work and imprint that in this place. It would be magnificent to see young people and older people throughout the country develop those skills and then bring them here to do that work, and there is great interest in that. It is about how we manage that positively but also, critically, demonstrate that we are doing so on a good cost basis and with value for money.

Security and access to the estate are important. Changes to the estate as a result of restoration and renewal and the northern estate programme will require additional resources and security measures. We all have strong memories of the March 2017 attack. A number of security projects have arisen from the Murphy review following that attack. We note that that work is due to be completed by summer 2021, but cyber-security remains a high risk. We know that from last week. The House will continue to face cost pressures from that, but security is critical to the work we do here.

The medium-term financial plan should enable the House service to support Parliament, deliver our specific objectives and demonstrate how the service will become increasingly effective and efficient over time. The strategy is currently being refreshed and the three existing strategic objectives are expected to be expanded to four: facilitating effective scrutiny and debate, involving and inspiring the public, securing Parliament’s future, and valuing every person. Those are important objectives.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is talking about an important subject, and it is important that it is recorded in the debate. The traditions, history and procedures we have in the House are perhaps unique to this place, but they have been the inspiration for many other democracies across the world. I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to that. It is so important that we retain those things in the House. We are a modern society, but we should also keep our traditions for democracies across the whole world.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I enjoy the traditions, and I agree in large part that they are important, but the evolution of new traditions is also important. I have visited the Scottish Parliament building and the Welsh Assembly this year. I have also been to Stormont twice. It was fairly quiet, but the building is magnificent, as are the others. I take on board the issue about cost, but we should be evolving by learning from all parts of the United Kingdom about how they are operating in a more modern setting. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda talk about the learning from Parliaments across the world. There has to be a way of preserving some of those traditions while making them work for the later part of the 21st century and into the 22nd century, which none of us will be here for. I hope we can bequeath something good to those who follow.

The investment plan sets out the bicameral plans for investment in strategic programmes, estates and digital. As we have heard, the bulk of that work is split into three areas: work on the Elizabeth Tower and fire safety, which is something we all would welcome; work on the northern estate; and the restoration and renewal programme, which we have talked about. I echo the comments made previously. It is important that that work is transparent and that we understand how it is happening. I am slightly alarmed to hear some of the comments about how projects are managed and the difficulty the Committee has had in following some of the decision making and the finances. These are substantial projects and we need to be assured that they are being well planned and monitored and are value for money. I agree that discussion at least annually is valuable. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why that could not happen.

On the Public Accounts Committee, we visited the Major Projects Authority, which is part of the Cabinet Office, as the Minister will be well aware. The learning and understanding of how to manage major projects is great within parts of government. There needs to be a way of taking the learning from places such as the Major Projects Authority and the work going on in the Cabinet Office and making it applicable to the work of this place. It is not acceptable that we ask other people, other public bodies and spenders of taxpayers’ money to operate in one way and then we operate in another. Although I am late to it, I am slightly alarmed that that does not seem to be happening. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said about looking at the role of the National Audit Office. Its reports on decision making and accountability are very clear and easy to follow. If the NAO cannot find its way through it, something is clearly wrong.

In concluding, I thank all the staff who are involved in all aspects of the work to make this place operate. I thank members of the Finance Committee for publishing this report, for the important work they do behind the scenes, which most of us perhaps do not see, and for their diligence in bringing that work before us this morning. The Opposition support the recommendations of the Finance Committee and welcome the chance to debate and scrutinise this report.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I will try my best to emulate some of what he tried to say.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the merits of trailer registration and to highlight the rationale and importance of clause 13(3), (4) and (5) and clause 14 (3) and (4), as amended in the House of Lords, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his earlier comments. The subsections require the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report. I welcome that, because the Department for Transport’s current reporting methods do not give us a true picture of the risks posed by light trailers in this country.

The subsections also give the Secretary of State the power to introduce compulsory trailer registration and mandatory testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kg. I accept that as a long overdue step towards improving trailer safety—although it is a compromise—but my work on the issue over the past three years has drawn me to the overwhelming conclusion there ought to be a compulsory register of all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, and that they should be subject to regular testing. I shall say more about that later.

My interest in trailer safety began soon after I was elected to this place in 2015, when my constituents Donna and Scott Hussey came to see me about their son, Freddie, who had been tragically killed in January 2014. Three-year-old Freddie and his mum were walking along the pavement when a two-tonne trailer came loose from a Land Rover, sped straight towards Freddie, and killed him. The trailer’s tow hitch had not been secure, as the position of its handbrake had prevented it from being locked down.

If the trailer had been subject to mandatory roadworthiness checks, the problem with the hitch might have been fixed and the tragedy might never have happened. Currently, trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, known as categories 01 and 02 or “light” trailers, are not required to have any such roadworthiness test, although trailers and their vehicles must be roadworthy when used on the road under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That is a loophole: without the licensing and hence the testing, there is no enforcement system.

I do not need to tell the House that the family continue to suffer a life sentence because of the horrific events of that day. However, I have been inspired by their courage and resilience, and we have been working together on a campaign to improve trailer safety ever since.

In the last three years, I have initiated a Westminster Hall debate and had meetings with two transport Ministers: the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and the current Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I have held two trailer safety summits, which were attended by representatives of key national organisations and Government agencies; I have spoken at the National Trailer and Towing Association’s annual conference; and I have met various experts with insights into trailer safety, including members of my local police force. The result has been the #towsafe4freddie campaign, launched by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to raise driver awareness, and an awful lot of hard work by the National Towing Working Group, spearheaded by Highways England and others. The National Trailer and Towing Association has set up a free trailer safety-checking initiative, and Avon and Somerset police have begun trailer awareness training for officers to enable them to spot unsafe trailers on the road.

That work commands cross-party interest and support. I am grateful to the Ministers for their attention to the issues, and for meeting the Hussey family: that meant a great deal to them. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and his team for attending my trailer summit in Bedminster last month, and for his willingness to engage with the experts. Despite that good work, however, we continue to underestimate hugely the safety risk posed by unchecked light trailers on our roads—which brings me to the Bill, and its importance.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the establishment of a trailer registration scheme that would allow UK trailer users to meet the registration standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. Registration is critical to trailer safety, because it constitutes an essential requirement for regular safety checks, and prevents unsafe trailers from being sold and resold. However, non-commercial, leisure-use trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes do not fall within the scope of the Bill, because they are not included in the convention. I believe that that is a missed opportunity.

In Committee in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam tabled a probing amendment that called for the registration scheme to apply to all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes.

He referred to the Government’s impact assessment, which stated that the Bill represented

“an opportunity to improve safety through better regulation",

and asked why the Government would not take advantage of it to widen the scope of the scheme. That raised an important point. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s digital service is now in place to facilitate the registering of trailers. It presents a good opportunity for the registration of all trailers, not only those weighing more than 3.5 tonnes. The Government fear that expanding the scheme would create an unnecessary administrative burden, but that needs to be balanced against the dangers posed by these vehicles. I remind the House that Freddie Hussey—aged just three—was crushed by a two-tonne trailer, heavier than the average car.

The issue of “proportionality” arose several times in the House of Lords, which is why, should the report referred to in the Bill conclude that trailers ought to be registered and subject to mandatory safety checks, the rule would apply only to trailers weighing more than 750 kg. That is a compromise. It is still very much my view—based on evidence that I have seen—that faulty trailers weighing less than 750kg represent a huge safety risk, which is why I believe that all trailers should be registered and checked.

I was delighted that the Lords supported the amendment that compels the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report, but the key word is “comprehensive”. It would not be good enough for the Government to commit themselves to a report, but to give us what already exists. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of how the Government will define “comprehensive” and how his Department will go about collecting the data. I am certainly not alone in believing that data on the safety of light trailers is currently lacking. During the Lords debate, Baroness Sugg, speaking for the Government, admitted that, having looked at the Department for Transport’s road accidents report, she agreed that the Government could and should consider the way in which they report trailer safety, and that it could “definitely be improved”. I welcome that assertion.

In the report, the Department highlights the huge gaps in the data that they currently collate for road accidents generally. They include only accidents that are reported to the police, that involve a personal injury, and that occur on public roads. The true number is of course much higher. The report states:

“These figures…do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”

in Great Britain, and goes on to describe the large proportion of non-fatal casualties not known to the police.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is talking eloquently about safety in relation to trailers and vehicles. We must have a high level of safety, so does she agree that those with licences from other countries, such as eastern Europe, should have the same high driving standards as our drivers in this country? Some, although not all, of the events the hon. Lady has been talking about involve drivers from other parts of Europe who do not have the driving skills that they should have.

[Karin Smyth]

I agree that we want all drivers to be of the highest standards. I cannot comment on the number of accidents caused by trailers that involve drivers not of that high standard, but in the work I have done over the last three years I have been shocked to discover how many trailers, in agriculture and across the piece, on our roads do not meet the requirements we would ordinarily expect, and I hope this Bill helps to improve that situation.

The current method of reporting a road accident means that there is no real way of knowing whether, and how, a trailer contributed to an accident. The details of incidents involving trailers are largely dependent upon the subjective viewpoint of the police officer on the scene, which the Department’s own report admits poses difficulties. The STATS19 form filled in by the officer is complex and gives 78 contributing factors for them to choose from. We currently have several police forces testing new reporting systems because of the huge inaccuracies and the inadequacy of this method.

In contrast to the statistics on trailer-related incidents presented by the Department for Transport, a growing body of evidence from industry organisations and case studies indicate the true scale of the problem. In July 2017, the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative, the first of its kind in the UK, in which light trailers are offered a free inspection at members’ premises. Since rolling this out it has found an astonishing 93% failure rate. I hope the work being done will help highlight to Members that they can encourage people in their constituencies to take advantage of these free safety checks and promote their use. Avon and Somerset police have also been carrying out checks and they broadly substantiate these findings; the failure rate is very high.

These initiatives further highlight that what is needed are checks on these vehicles in order to prevent accidents, and not purely the collection of data on vehicles once they have been involved in an accident. With an estimated 2 million light trailers on the road, a large proportion of which are many years old, it is not unreasonable to assume that a significant amount would fail a roadworthiness test. All cars, which in many cases are lighter than trailers, are subjected to rigorous MOT testing each year, so by what logic can the Government argue that trailer safety checks are not integral to improving safety standards?

It is my sincere hope that the Government will accept the measures discussed as an opportunity to move this issue on and demonstrate their commitment to preventing further tragedies such as Freddie’s from happening in the future. We can only do that if we have clearer data on light trailer safety so that the Secretary of State can make an informed decision on whether we ought to have mandatory registration and checks.

In summary, I am grateful for the comments and the work of the Secretary of State and the Minister on this issue and for clauses 13(3), (4) and (5) and 14(3) and (4), but how will the Government define what is “comprehensive”? Also, will the Department initiate new ways of collating data on light trailers beyond the STATS19 form? How does it plan to gather such data? Finally, how does the Minister plan for the data to be gathered to meet the timeframe set out in the Bill—one year from the day the relevant section comes into force?

Air Rifles

Debate between Karin Smyth and Jim Shannon

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing this debate on the use and control of air rifles. This is a subject that the House has debated in the past, but which continues to have serious consequences for many of those we represent. Too many lives have been unnecessarily lost and too many serious injuries have been inflicted upon innocent civilians. Sadly, a large proportion of these victims are children and young people. We cannot ignore the issue and we need to do something about it.

Let me explain my interest in the issue. On 1 July 2016, my young constituent Harry Studley—then just 18 months old—was shot in the head and critically injured with an air rifle. Thanks to the efforts of the local emergency services, including the swift intervention of the Great Western air ambulance and the clinical staff at Bristol Children’s Hospital, little Harry pulled through despite his injuries. Harry’s parents, Ed and Amy, have explained to me that he has been left partially sighted, suffers memory loss and has post-traumatic seizures as a result of the incident. A local man was convicted of causing Harry grievous bodily harm and jailed for two years.

Many people living in Bristol and the west country will recall hearing about this devastating incident in the local media. Parents listening to the heart-breaking details of the case would understandably have asked, “Could this happen to my family? Could the incident have been prevented? What can be done to make these weapons safer? Should these weapons be banned?”. Those are all valid questions and there are more. In young Harry’s case, it was suggested that the weapon was being cleaned. Would legislation making trigger locks compulsory on these weapons have prevented this dreadful and life-changing incident? We will never know in this specific case, but we have a solemn duty as elected representatives to scrutinise, to keep asking questions on behalf of those we serve and to bring greater safety.

As Harry continues to recover, I pay tribute to his family. They have shown great resilience in the face of adversity. Crucially, they have been tenacious and determined that we should all learn from the incident that transformed their futures. As part of this work, they have closely monitored further incidents with air weapons. They were encouraged by the debate held in Westminster Hall in September 2016 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), whose long-standing interest in the issue dates from 1999 when a constituent of his, aged just 13, was killed. The 2016 debate called for the introduction of trigger locks, the safe storage of air weapons and a review of the impact of recent Scottish legislation, which I will come to later.

In a written response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the then Home Office Minister responsible indicated that the Government would

“review the current air gun leaflet”

and

“keep a close eye on the introduction of air weapons licensing in Scotland”,

an issue to which I now turn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this topic to the House for consideration. She will know, after discussions I had with her earlier, that Northern Ireland has very strict legislation covering air rifles and, indeed, all weapons. I say kindly and carefully to her that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance have laid out strict protocols and rules within the remit of the law. Does she feel that the law in England and the UK is sufficient to stop these things happening?

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, for the information he has shared with me and for his expertise in this area. The point I will come on to is that we need to learn in England from what happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland and that children in Bristol South should be afforded the same level of security as children there, and I will return to that.

Hon. Members will know that, following a series of tragic incidents involving air weapons, the Scottish Government acted to address the problem. Under the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, it has been an offence since the start of this year to use, possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without holding an air weapon certificate. It is a condition of that licence that weapons are securely stored in order that access and possession cannot be gained by a person who is not authorised. The licence application also requires the disclosure of criminal convictions, and the police must be satisfied that the applicant can possess an air weapon

“without danger to the public safety or to the peace”

before issuing an air weapon certificate. That is over and beyond section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968, under which a person who has been convicted of an offence may be prohibited from possessing firearms, including air weapons.

In the run-up to the change in the law, 20,000 air weapons were surrendered to the authorities in Scotland and destroyed—20,000 fewer potentially lethal weapons were on the streets, and I think the House will agree that that makes Scotland safer. However, in England, just since the start of May 2017, there have been incidents involving air weapons and children in Carlisle, Bury, Chelmsford, Ipswich, Exeter and, most tragically, Loughborough, where, in August, a five-year-old boy was reportedly shot and killed with an air rifle—another tragic child death. In spring 2016, a 13-year-old boy was killed in Bury St Edmunds.