Services for People with Autism

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) on all the work that she has done on this issue.

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, but does he share my annoyance about the fact that, unfortunately, autism seems to be one of those invisible disabilities? Many parents talk about the way in which others judge their children, saying that they are just being naughty. That failure of understanding goes to the heart of the problem faced by autistic children and adults, whose contribution to our communities is enormous, individual and highly important. We should be able to open our eyes to all the strengths that they bring to us, and make a space in which they can be understood through the services that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman has put it beautifully. As he probably knows, a recent survey showed that 50% of autistic individuals and families were scared to go out, and did not go out, because they were worried about how they would be judged. That isolation is a huge challenge for us.

Draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 General Committees

[Steve Brine]

I heard the statement in the House last night and I have read a little bit of it this morning, but I wanted to give every attention to the Committee, as the Opposition Whip will understand. I shall listen closely to the advice of the Attorney General, which I believe is imminent, and to any statements made in the House today.

The imports that I was referring to can contain contaminants, such as salmonella in sesame seeds and pesticide residues in peppers—and in lemons, believe it or not. Imports of those goods from specified countries are currently controlled by Commission regulation 669/2009. Notification about those products must be given in advance of their arrival and they must be subject to official controls ranging from documentary checks to identity and physical examinations, including sampling. To give another example, if I may, Commission regulation 884/2014 lays down controls governing the import of nuts, nut products and some spices from listed countries. Examples of listed countries could be India—I cannot read my own writing—Indonesia or Ethiopia. There is a full list. It is important that these controls and the others listed in the instruments function properly once we leave the EU.

Fundamentally, the amendments specified in these instruments address technical deficiencies in key pieces of European legislation with application to the entire UK and three pieces of domestic legislation that apply in England only. The amendments have been bundled together because they all address law designed to ensure the effectiveness and standards of our official controls system, including for food and feed imports.

Hon. Members will notice that the instruments concern the protection not just of public health, but of animal health and welfare. In particular, the draft Official Controls for Feed, Food and Animal Health and Welfare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been jointly prepared by officials from the Food Standards Agency and DEFRA. However, it was agreed that ultimate responsibility for the instruments would lie with the FSA.

The instruments are intended solely to address inoperabilities in domestic legislation and retained EU law. However, as a result of the way the law is constructed, that results in some changes to the way our legal framework for official controls would work. As some of the amendments address retained EU law, it was necessary to remove references to EU terminology, such as “member states”—that is perfectly logical—and to systems such as the European reference laboratories network. Ultimately, UK competent authorities will no longer participate in European programmes regarding official controls, such as the European Commission’s international audit body, SANTE. That fact is addressed by the amendments and DEFRA is preparing a domestic audit body of its own.

Furthermore, the powers that are currently provided to the European Commission to make legislation are either repatriated to the appropriate UK authority, amended to become administrative functions or removed altogether as a result of their inapplicability—[Interruption.] Yes, exactly—inapplicability. It is my age. I was going to say “as a result of their inapplicability in a UK-only context”. We will edit that bit out. Powers have been transferred strictly where necessary for the UK to maintain a controls system responsive to emerging risks to public health and animal health and welfare.

That is particularly the case in the area of import controls. Although the existing rules governing official controls do not create detailed rules for the performance of controls on imported food and feed, they do set standards and powers for competent authorities controlling trade in such goods. In practice, in the short term this will only mean an increase in the need for more controls on high-risk food and feed, such as the sesame seeds contaminated with salmonella that I referred to earlier, entering the UK from third countries via the European Union. EU regulation 669/2009, which I mentioned, contains the list of those countries, and I can give some examples if hon. Members are interested.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I want to pose a question about the principles for goods that have been placed on our market before departure day and the same goods returning post departure day. Where in the two statutory instruments that are before us is the confirmation that the essential make-up has to stay the same to be recognised post departure, and how will we ensure that that takes place as we remove ourselves from the European Union structures?

[Steve Brine]

I can expand on this in my response, but the point is that all we are doing here is transposing the very strict and world-class enforcement rules that operate at the moment for us as a member state. Anything that is within the chain at that time will be exactly in line with everything we have signed up to as a member state. Because we are talking about complete convergence in the immediate future after exit, I have no concern about that. I have asked officials about it.

Any checking to ensure that there is no divergence will be the responsibility of the agencies I have listed— the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland and local authorities. The regulations do not make any changes to that, and anything that came on to the market—whether into this country, into this country to go into the European Union, or into the European Union to enter this country—would be subject to all the same rules that it currently is. I think hon. Members should have confidence, as I do, that this is a continuation or a bridge between our membership and, hopefully, our transition period.

I will touch on the impact on local and public authorities, which I know there was some interest in last week. As the primary purpose of the existing legislation is to ensure the effective enforcement of food and feed law by competent authorities in EU member states, the amendments will be of interest to public bodies responsible for delivering those controls in the UK, such as local authorities and port health authorities. As I mentioned, there will be some impact on the way that certain high-risk food and feed is controlled when entering the UK as a result of our leaving the European Union. However, for authorities delivering official controls in the UK, the primary impact of the instruments will be familiarisation costs.

With regard to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian alluded to, it is not foreseen that the day-to-day delivery of official controls, which are performed predominantly by local authorities, will be otherwise impacted by these changes. The UK will maintain its world-class operational standards in this area, regardless of the way in which we leave the EU. I have been crystal clear on that for all the SIs I have dealt with in this space, such as when I spoke to the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee in the Lords last week.

Public authorities will be impacted by the effects of leaving the framework for the performance of official controls created by this legislation. For example, we will no longer be legally bound to provide administrative assistance to other European countries upon request. That does not mean that co-operation with other countries’ enforcement agencies will cease—I stress that important point. We are developing new ways of working with our international delivery partners to ensure that we can continue to tackle complex international food safety incidents once we leave the European Union. It is important to note that the European Food Safety Authority grew out of the Food Standards Agency; in many ways, we were the rock upon which the EU built its church, not the other way around. Despite all the legal changes that will take place when we leave the European Union, the relationship changes will be minimal or non-existent, and our relationships are absolutely first class. I stress that point regularly, such as when I spoke to the FSA chair last week.

On the impact on industry, businesses will be interested in the amendments to the rules concerning charging for official controls. Official controls legislation creates minimum charges for the performance of official controls on the domestic production and import of certain imported food and feed. Amendments in this area centre on the use of Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Exiting the European Union’s recommended conversion rate for references to euros in retained EU law. In practice, that will have minimal impact on businesses: the Food Standards Agency has a methodology for calculating the charges levied on businesses slaughtering and cutting meat that is not affected by the changes to the minimum rate set out in this legislation. Equally, DEFRA’s approach to controls on imports of EU-derived products of animal origin means that no new chargeable import controls are projected. As with public authorities, there may be one-off familiarisation costs. All told, we do not anticipate a great financial or administrative impact on businesses as a result of the technical nature of the amendments.

Food and feed safety, as well as animal health and welfare, are devolved policy areas. As such, the instruments have been drafted to reflect the distribution of responsibility for delivery of official controls in the UK. In some instances, that means powers flowing back from Brussels to the appropriate UK authorities, which include Ministers in Scotland and Wales and the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations have provided their consent to these instruments, and officials from all parts of the UK have been working together well and constructively in this field. I place on record my thanks to them.

As with previous SIs, we have respected the full flow-through of powers; in fact, if the devolved Governments decide that they want to diverge in their treatment of high-risk imports, they will have increased devolved powers with which to do so. I would not expect too much divergence to take place within the UK, because with all the disruption that leaving the EU will inevitably bring, given the 40-odd years of culture involved, the last thing we want to do is create disruption and internal market issues within the UK. That would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland any more than it would be in England’s interests.

The amendments only go as far as necessary to ensure that we have a fully functioning UK statute book; indeed, the legislation only allows us to go as far as necessary to ensure that our statute book equips our authorities with the necessary powers to continue to protect public and animal health after exit day. The successful resolution of the instruments is necessary to ensure that we can maintain the high standard of food and feed safety, biosecurity and consumer protection that is offered by this country’s excellent enforcement agencies and competent authorities. I place on the record my thanks for the hard work that those organisations have done and will do in preparation for exit day. I urge hon. Members to agree to the amendments that are proposed in the instruments, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms McDonagh, on this bright windy morning. I thank the Minister for bringing the two statutory instruments to the House today and for ably summarising them.

We are all aware that today is a very important day for our country. We are only 17 days from Brexit, yet MPs are just, tonight, getting the latest meaningful vote on the Prime Minister’s latest deal. I expect that not much, or perhaps not enough, will have changed; as the Minister said, we are waiting on the Attorney General’s judgment. This is all very concerning for millions of people up and down the country—concerns I know the Minister shares.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit—we might know in the next few days if that is what will happen—we need to be prepared, but as I have said throughout our consideration of these SIs, I regret that the Government have waited so long to prepare for no deal, given that it was the fallout position for if we did not get a deal. Regardless of how much scrutiny we give the legislation this morning, it is being rushed through. As legislators, we need two things: information and the time to process and scrutinise that information. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to provide MPs with either. I regret the way in which the Government have processed the legislation, but here we are.

Moving on to the SIs, food and feed law serves to protect public health, as well as animal health and welfare. I appreciate that that is a difficult balancing act, particularly in light of growing public concerns about where our food comes from. What conversations has the Minister been having with his colleagues in DEFRA about animal health and welfare, and its impact on our food?

In addition to ensuring human and animal health, the Government must provide continuity for business operators and trade. The Minister touched on that. Is he confident that the SIs will ensure that continuity? What conversations has his Department had with business operators and trade? Similarly, what conversations has his Department had with the scrutinising bodies that will take over the responsibilities of the EU bodies? Will the Minister please confirm which bodies will be doing that? Is he confident that they have adequate time and resources to provide a check and balance on food standards once we leave the EU?

The explanatory memorandum says that staff will need to familiarise themselves with the amendments. Is the Minister confident that the staff referred to in the memorandum have had all the information they require to do that?

[Martin Whitfield]

Originally, there was a reading time of less than 30 minutes, but following the consultation it was extended to not more than an hour. That has underpinned the financial implications of the statutory instruments. Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be an arbitrary take on the time it will take local authority officials and businesses to read the paperwork? When we have looked at it, it has certainly taken more than an hour to read, process and understand—if one is able to download it.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We debated that very point in some of last week’s Delegated Legislation Committees. I thought that perhaps I was a slow reader, as it took me considerably longer than 60 minutes not just to read it, but to try to understand and digest it. I recall the Minister saying last week that that time was just a guide, but I am sure he will address that point directly.

With that in mind, is the Department offering any support to scrutinising bodies to ensure that queries can be answered quickly and effectively? In the event of a no-deal Brexit, which none of us wants, there will be lots of new changes, so I hope that scrutinising bodies will be properly equipped to ensure that nothing is slipped through—chlorinated chicken, for example—that could cause harm later on. We need experts on the ground who are able to scrutinise and safeguard public health in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Both statutory instruments cause fragmentation across the nations. Can the Minister tell the Committee when legislation will be made by the devolved Administrations? Has he had discussions with the devolved Administrations about these changes? Colleagues from all regions will be rightly concerned about the disparity that might be caused by the SIs.

The draft Food and Feed Imports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 include an amendment to the Plastic Kitchenware (Conditions on Imports from China) (England) Regulations 2011. I am sure that there is plastic kitchenware from China in my kitchen and in all our kitchens. It would be difficult for there not to be, considering how much China produces. However, this seems entirely isolated from the rest of the measures in the SI. Will the Minister tell the Committee why those changes are being made in this SI? Is there something about Chinese plastic kitchenware that we need to watch out for? I certainly do not eat it.

The draft food and feed imports regulations state that functions currently undertaken by the European Commission on food controls will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister provide information on how decisions on food controls will be made and managed? Who will advise the Secretary of State on those decisions? Imported food can be susceptible to known or emerging risks linked to specific food or feed of animal and non-animal origin. It is therefore important for human health and consumer trust that we get this right. Equally, consumer trust and consciousness mean that we cannot see a reduction in animal ethics.

I hope that the Minister can allay some of those concerns today, and I look forward to his response.

Draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 General Committees

[Steve Brine]

I will come on to directly address the hon. Gentleman’s point about the replacement for the European Food Safety Authority; I thank him for raising that point. I mentioned foods for young children, which obviously addresses the other point that he made.

The instrument deals with an important area of legislation. Many thriving businesses operate in this space and employ many of our citizens. I reassure those citizens that our overarching aim is that businesses and other interested stakeholders seeking to submit applications, scientific dossiers, relevant files or notifications currently governed by the nutrition legislation amended by this instrument are not burdened with additional regulations or significant changes to the processes. Overall, our policy intention is to mirror the existing regulatory system and processes already in place as closely as possible, and the SI makes all the provisions necessary to do exactly that.

The amendments made by these regulations are primarily technical in nature. They include changing EU-specific references to ensure that they are effective in the UK after EU exit day, and transferring legislative functions from the European Commission to the appropriate UK authority. The amendments also ensure that all relevant EU lists, registers and annexes apply effectively from exit day, enabling continuity for businesses and maintaining the high standards already in place at EU level. Following exit day, any changes made at EU level will not apply in the UK, because clearly we will then be a third country.

One important change made by the SI is the transfer of functions from the European Food Safety Authority, which has already been referred to, to an appropriate expert committee in the UK. For nutrition and health claims, a new UK nutrition and health claims committee would assume responsibility for providing scientific advice to the four UK Administrations on any new claims made about products marketed within the UK’s borders. That committee would operate in a similar way and to similar timescales as the current EFSA process, providing further continuity to business. I am pleased to confirm to the Committee that the process for recruiting specialist members is well under way: high-calibre applications were received, interviews took place earlier this month, and the committee is ready to come into effect if required. We will announce its members shortly.

Regarding the devolved Administrations, the SI allows for the relevant Commission powers to be transferred to the Secretary of State here in England, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and, in Northern Ireland, the Department of Health in Stormont, thereby making provision for each of the Administrations to make their own legislation. In addition, if consent is provided by the devolved Administrations, the SI gives the Secretary of State the power to make legislation for the whole of the UK where that is appropriate and agreed to.

The devolved Administrations have been involved with the drafting of the regulations at every stage. I want to state on record that I am grateful for their continued collaborative approach in this area, helping to make sure that this policy continues to operate at the same high standards after our exit from the EU as it does now, as expected by Members of this House, by me and, most importantly, by the British public.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The regulations specifically require the consent of the devolved authorities for the regulations to be made across the UK by the Secretary of State. As MP for East Lothian, may I welcome that explicit statement, which is perhaps lacking in some other instruments?

[Steve Brine]

Yes, you may.

Paediatric Cancers of the Central Nervous System

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time, debating an important subject that has been raised several times in this House. I rise to pay tribute to two constituents—Alex Logan and Luke Stewart—who lost their lives recently. I have spoken to the Minister and others about treatment abroad, and I urge the Minister and the NHS to look more widely for possible cures and to be—I phrase this carefully—more open-minded about where the answers may lie.

[Chris Elmore]

I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse his tribute to his two constituents. I will speak later about some of my asks regarding international research, to which I hope the Minister will respond positively.

It is of course vital that we continue to undertake the best research possible into brain tumours in adults, but I must impress upon the Minister that it is essential that we give equal priority to childhood cancers. It is extremely positive to see groundbreaking work being undertaken in Wales, including through the Wales Cancer Research Centre, which is funded by the Welsh Government and led by Cardiff University. In recent years, it has been very positive to see the new drug/radiation combination trials coming to Wales, which could lead to new world-leading treatments being made available in the Welsh NHS. Clinicians and politicians of all political colours agree that this is an uphill struggle, but I know that it is a fight that colleagues in the Welsh Government will face head-on.

I pay tribute to the charities doing such vital work to advance research. I am pleased that the charity Brain Tumour Research is working closely with Cardiff University to fund research into some of the most aggressive forms of brain tumours. I know that Brain Tumour Research and CLIC Sargent have raised concerns about the hidden costs of treatments for the families of patients being treated for such cancers. CLIC Sargent finds that parents of children suffering from cancer spend as much as £600 a month on top of their normal travel expenses. We must work together, across health boundaries, to decrease that cost and provide financial support where possible.

Energy Drink Sales to Children

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the sale of energy drinks to children.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased and proud to have been able to secure this debate. The UK’s growing childhood dietary and obesity crisis is something that the Government need to address. Government policy holds the key to that challenge and I hope that today’s debate will contribute to that.

To many of us, the sight of a child drinking a can of energy drink might not be something that we would even take a second look at—it has become so commonplace now—but in the last 10 to 15 years there has been an explosion in the popularity of these drinks, particularly among children and adolescents. It is estimated that between 2006 and 2014 the sale of energy drinks in the UK increased by 155%, and it is still growing. While the soft drinks market is generally declining, the global energy drinks market is projected to grow by 3.5% annually until at least 2020. On average, young people in the UK consume more energy drinks than those in other EU countries, which means that it is British children who are most at risk from the growing energy drinks market.

Furthermore, it is becoming clearer that many children and parents are just not aware of the health risks of regularly consuming these drinks. Many parents and young people will not be aware that on the back of a can of energy drink are the words, “Not recommended for children.” The Government rightly ensure that any product that is high in caffeine carries that warning. How can it be that the Government force companies to warn that their products are unsafe for children to drink, but follow with no enforcement measures or protections against children drinking them? Why are we allowing our young people to drink these highly caffeinated drinks, often several times a day, without any protection?

I asked myself that question after watching Jamie Oliver’s “Friday Night Feast”. The programme investigated the dangers and the prevalence of children regularly drinking these drinks. I was shocked. A massive 68% of those aged between 10 and 18 said they were consumers of energy drinks, with 12% of those saying they drank as much as 1 litre of energy drink per session. To put that in perspective, a single litre bottle of energy drink can contain the equivalent caffeine of five shots of espresso and 12 teaspoons of sugar. Even more shockingly, they can be purchased for as little as 79p. I like my coffee in the morning as much as anyone else, but I think Members would join me in my shock if ahead of us in the morning queue for our lattes we saw a 10-year-old child order and drink a double, triple or even quadruple espresso. Why are children allowed to purchase these energy drinks?

In my area of Teesside earlier this year a 16-year-old child was allowed to purchase 12 cans of energy drink from a single store. He went on to down five to six cans in a single sitting—the equivalent of approximately seven shots of espresso. He did it because he said he needed a boost to get through his session at college, but he was sent home from school later that day by teachers said to be fuming at his behaviour. Luckily, he had no immediate health problems as a result. However, had he drunk any more, it is possible that it could have caused cardiac arrest or other serious health problems. There are currently no protections or measures to limit the amount of these drinks that a child can purchase. It is a danger to young people and something that needs to be addressed.

One of the biggest problems is the way these drinks are promoted and advertised to children and young people. They are marketed as giving boosts to physical or mental performance, which means that children are purchasing and drinking them before school or sports, in the perverse belief that they are somehow improving their mental or physical health.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend might be aware that Ross High School in Tranent in my constituency introduced “fizz-free February” in 2017, stopping the sale of energy and carbonated drinks. They carried it on, with the consent of the pupils, and all the high schools in East Lothian joined fizz-free February in 2018. It is a voluntary action taken by the schools and children. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to empower schools?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate those schools on showing leadership and having a beneficial effect on children’s ability to learn in school. He is absolutely right that the key is Government policy. There is too much confusion, and we should not rely on schools and shops preventing children from accessing energy drinks.

Studies show that regularly consuming large quantities of caffeine can result in increased blood pressure, sleep disturbance, headaches and stomach aches. Energy drinks have also been proven to affect children’s mental health, causing self-destructive behaviour, insomnia, problems with behavioural regulation and poor lifestyle behaviours, such as a poor diet and the consumption of fast food. It has also been shown that children who drink energy drinks are more likely to consume alcohol, smoke or take drugs in later life. Governments of all parties have introduced important and much-needed measures to tackle childhood obesity and poor dietary health, but I believe that if we leave this avenue open, children will be at risk of poor health impacts, both now and in their future life.

I am sure that many companies will say that they do not directly market their products to children, but energy drinks are highly sweetened and are often sold for as little as 30p, and the packaging sometimes contains marketing techniques such as video game rewards. In addition, studies have found that children perversely associate these sometimes unhealthy drinks with sporting activities. Many of the larger energy drink manufacturers sponsor extreme sports events such as the Red Bull cliff diving series, or major sporting occasions such as the Carabao cup.

Energy drinks are often associated with children’s favourite sports or a general culture of glamorous, adventurous, risk-taking behaviour. Many carry names such as Relentless, Monster and Boost, which often look thrilling and risky to children and have associations with danger and excitement. Young people report that they see such products advertised on television, in video games and through sports sponsorships, despite pledges from advertisers to reduce such advertising. In a recent study organised by Teesside University, in conjunction with four other universities in the north-east, one child said:

“If you’re playing on your tablet or something and you’re playing a game, an advert pops up for Relentless.”

Will the Minister promise to look at ways of strengthening the rules on how those companies advertise and promote themselves to children?

Consuming energy drinks affects not just children’s health but their education. Many teachers, teaching unions and school staff have expressed the view that students should not be able to purchase such drinks. A survey carried out by the NASUWT found that 13% of teachers and school leaders identified energy drinks as the main contributor to poor behaviour that they had witnessed. Teachers have previously said that such drinks are a contributory factor to classroom violence and falling asleep in class.

Many schools have already prohibited energy drinks from school grounds, but that is not enough on its own. Teachers need Government support. Banning energy drinks from schools does not prevent students from drinking them off site and then coming into school. A study commissioned by the Scottish Government found that one in four 13 to 15-year-olds purchased an energy drink when they went out of school at lunch time. Will the Minister commit to supporting teachers and schools by joining them in prohibiting children from buying such drinks?

I am sure that many Members have seen in the press that retailers such as Waitrose, Tesco and WHSmith, and many cinema chains and petrol garages, have already stopped selling energy drinks to under-16s. I welcome those steps and agree that they are important, but they are not enough. The Association of Convenience Stores estimates that 53% of independent convenience retailers do not sell energy drinks, but the lack of clarity about how often children can purchase and drink them means that there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of outlets where children can buy such drinks with no protection. I recently heard of an offer that enabled children to buy four cans of an energy drink for £1. I heard that one child was going in, buying four drinks and splitting them among his friends. They are readily accessible and very cheap, and there is not enough clarity or regulation, so retailers do not know how to handle it.

It is not enough for the Government to leave it to retailers, because only responsible retailers will take the responsible steps. That would leave children’s health to the lottery of whether their local shop will sell the drinks to them. When asked about this issue previously in Parliament and in written questions, Ministers have said that they will follow it and look at any scientific evidence, but there is already ample scientific evidence—at least 11 qualitative and quantitative studies have been carried out on the subject.

Teesside University has recently joined four other universities in the north-east to carry out research on this subject. It found that such drinks are readily available in many local shops, and that own-brand energy drinks are among the cheapest drinks available— nearly always cheaper than water. It also found that branding, marketing and social norms are important factors in shaping children’s consumption choices. Children have found that the information on the packaging is sometimes confusing. One child taking part in the study said:

“Some younger kids, they read the label but say they don’t know what…4.8 sugar means. They don’t know what it means—is that a lot or is it not a lot?”

The Government must take further steps to better educate young people about food choices and the effect that sugar, caffeine and other substances can have on the body. When asked about this topic previously, Ministers have referred to the upcoming childhood obesity plan, which the Minister is taking forward. Will he clarify whether the Government envisage changes to the sale of energy drinks being part of the obesity strategy, or will there be separate measures? Will he meet me to discuss this issue further?

We know that consuming energy drinks is not healthy for children, that teachers and parents want them prohibited, that many retailers do not believe it is right that children can purchase them and that, given that the packaging carries a warning, energy drink producers themselves do not think children should be consuming them. The Government have said in the past that they are willing to look at the issue, but will the Minister commit to listening to parents, teachers, manufacturers, retailers and health campaigners such as Jamie Oliver and implement a full ban on the sale of these highly caffeinated and, frankly, highly dangerous energy drinks to children?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)]

All good things come to those who wait. After the delay, here we are.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing the debate. I know that there are competing pressures on Members’ time today, but I am surprised that there are not more here for this debate on a big, emerging issue that is gathering momentum. My ministerial colleagues and I have been asked about it at Health questions previously—perhaps that is what the hon. Lady was referring to. I thank her for introducing the debate and for setting out the case very clearly.

We all agree that the regular consumption of energy drinks by children is not appropriate at all. I say that as one who has young children. That applies especially to those under 16, as energy drinks often contain a lot of caffeine and sugar—I will talk about both. They are often coupled with other sources of caffeine and sugar in children’s diets. Too much of a good thing, or too much of a bad thing in this case, can lead to difficulties sleeping and headaches—I have heard stories about that—and there is obviously an effect in terms of tooth decay and weight gain. In addition to the health and wellbeing impacts of the risk to children of consuming large volumes of energy drinks, there is anecdotal evidence, notably from schools, that their consumption has a very negative impact on children’s behaviour and, in turn, their learning. The hon. Lady gave an example from her constituency, and I have heard about countless cases as a constituency MP and through the media. It is right that we are having this debate and that we continue to examine the issue of the consumption of energy drinks by children, but this is not just about children; adults should also look at the small print on such drinks, because too much is not good for anybody.

The hon. Lady gave some figures, and I will give some of my own. A 250 ml can of an energy drink usually contains about 80 mg of caffeine, which is similar to two or three cans of cola, a mug of instant coffee or, as the hon. Lady said, an espresso. Some of the smaller energy “shot” products contain twice as much caffeine.

EU food information regulations require specific labelling for high-caffeine drinks and foods where caffeine has been added for a psychological effect. Such labelling helps consumers to identify foods with a high caffeine content where they may not expect to find it. The British Soft Drinks Association’s code of practice states that high-caffeine soft drinks should not be marketed, advertised or promoted to children under 16. It is right about that, of course. Amid growing public concern, and in line with that voluntary industry code, we have recently seen major supermarkets banning the sale of such products to under-16s. When companies do the right thing, I always think it is worth putting that on the record. Asda, Aldi, Co-op Food, Lidl, Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose have all voluntarily decided to ban the sale of these products to under-16s and they deserve credit for that action.

It is important that the Government remain open-minded and continue to look at any new evidence that emerges. I promise the House that we certainly are and we certainly will. The European Food Safety Authority published an opinion on the safety of caffeine less than two years ago, in May 2015. It derived safe daily intakes for adults and children and concluded that, when consumed at those intake levels, caffeine raises no serious concerns for the general healthy population, but based on current evidence on caffeine safety, the Food Standards Agency, for which I have ministerial responsibility, advises that children or other people sensitive to caffeine should consume caffeine only in moderation. That advice has remained unchanged up to this point. The hon. Lady may be aware that in March, the Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the consumption of energy drinks. We welcome the inquiry very much and we recently submitted our evidence on behalf of the Government—I know she will look for that.

In the light of renewed, obvious and justified public concern, recently the Food Standards Agency has undertaken a literature review to identify if any new robust scientific studies have been conducted since the 2015 EFSA review that I mentioned. On 20 March, the results of the review and the information provided by the #notforchildren campaign were presented to the UK’s committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment, for consideration. In particular, the committee is now considering whether a review of caffeine consumption in children and adolescents is required to ascertain whether the studies published since the EFSA opinion add significantly to the body of evidence.

Retailers have acted to restrict the consumption of energy drinks. I am pleased to note that alongside all the supermarkets that I mentioned, other prominent retailers such as WHSmith and Boots, which have a significant high street presence in my constituency and, I am sure, in the hon. Lady’s, have also voluntarily acted to restrict their sales to under-16s. She mentioned this but it is worth repeating that many small retailers, which may be seen as the villain in the piece—I do not think that the facts bear that out—restrict the sales of energy drinks to children. I understand that around half the Association of Convenience Stores’ nearly 50,000 shops have implemented a voluntary ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s. Good for them and thanks to them.

In schools, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and the hon. Member for Redcar, energy drinks are not permitted within the school food standards. Schools have the power to confiscate, retain or dispose of any item that is banned by the school rules, which can include energy drinks. Some schools already do that. I was very interested to hear about fizz-free February—I will google it later and see where it takes me.

The school food standards came into force in January 2015. They define the food and drinks that must be provided, those that are restricted and those that must not be provided. They apply to all food and drink provided to pupils on and off school premises. I am due to see the Schools Minister shortly about another matter, but I will discuss this issue with him and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the Minister have any comments about the advertising of high-energy drinks through computer games and on social media?

[Steve Brine]

That is an emerging policy area that I am taking very close interest in, as the Public Health Minister and someone with an interest in the public health and child obesity agendas. In the same way that the major retailers that I put on the record have shown what I suggest is a great deal of corporate responsibility, I suggest that the producers of these drinks might also take a long, hard look and consider their social and moral responsibility, so that they can stay within the spirit of the guidelines.

Autism

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

We have heard all sorts of stories about exclusions in schools, and I think there is a wild west of exclusions out there. This is why our Committee is looking into it and undertaking an inquiry, and we have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my frustration at the fact that, while the strategies for making life as easy and pleasant as possible for such children in schools are available to everyone, the dissemination of that knowledge and its take-up by schools and authorities are so lacking?

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will mention this later, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham opened the debate, she talked about the increased training that is taking place, and the Government are doing a fair bit to try to change this situation.

As I have said, our Committee has heard that the number of exclusions is rising and that increasing numbers of children are being educated in alternative provision, but in some cases this is not the most appropriate place for children to be educated. We have heard that children with special educational needs and disability may have unrecognised or unmet needs early on in their school career—possibly speech, language and communication needs or, indeed, autism.

These children do not engage with their learning, and their struggle to engage and their unmet needs affect their behaviour and they get caught up in the school’s disciplinary procedures. Earlier intervention and support may well enable the children to continue to learn with their peers, or to be moved to more specialist provision, without the need for exclusion and the distress and disruption that this creates for the child and their family.

As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) pointed out, teachers need to be supported and trained to identify where pupils have additional needs and require extra support in the classroom. According to the National Autistic Society, only one in four teachers say that they received any autism training when completing their teaching qualification. Nearly eight in 10 say that they have received some autism training since qualifying, but fewer than half say they feel confident about supporting a child on the autism spectrum in their class. That is why projects such as The Difference, which aims to train school leaders to support pupils with mental health issues and autism, and reduce exclusion from school, are important. Such leadership is essential.

Our Committee heard from Drew Povey, headteacher of Harrop Fold school. He said that they consider education to be about preparing a pupil for life, and that

“as a result of that, we shifted our mindset to move from ‘we cannot exclude young people’, to, ‘we do not exclude’”.

Indeed, that school excludes no one. Drew Povey went on:

“That was extremely powerful for us as a school, and we are proud to say that we have not excluded a student, fixed term or permanently, now for over 10 years.”

What a remarkable school and remarkable headteacher.

We need to get post-16 opportunities right for young people so that they can continue to climb the ladder of opportunity when they leave school. I served alongside the Minister in one of her previous roles, and she is passionate about apprenticeships. Autistic young people should be able to benefit properly from opportunities such as apprenticeships, and I urge the Government to come up with specific proposals. They are doing a lot for people with disabilities, and to attract more women and people from the black and minority ethnic community, but we need a specific programme to help and encourage businesses to employ apprentices who have autism. I think that a levy would be a good financial incentive, and we should set aside money to create a specific apprenticeship social justice fund to support organisations such as the Prince’s Trust that bridge the gap between school and apprenticeships, and help vulnerable people.

These are issues of social justice, and all members of the Education Committee are committed to helping children and young people climb that educational ladder of opportunity. All children should have equal life chances, and be able to learn in schools that meet their needs and support them to thrive. However, being able to climb that ladder of opportunity is not sufficient if young people are not then able to move into the world of work. I welcome the Government’s commitment to approving alternative provision for young people, and I am heartened that a review of exclusion is being led by the brilliant former Minister, Ed Timpson. There must be more focus on ensuring that those children do not drop off the cliff edge of support when they leave school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is following the example of Bristol West in Bristol East. I have a member of staff who is allocated to lead for me on autism, and we are pushing the council and cultural institutions to work towards the National Autistic Society autism-friendly award. We support children with autism and their parents to get the educational support they need, and we do that because we believe that people on the autistic spectrum should be able to participate fully in our social, cultural, economic and public lives. We believe that all aspects of our lives are better when autistic people are included, and that is true for neurotypical people, as well as for autistic people and their families.

However, too many autistic people are excluded. Too many—far too many, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham knows—feel excluded, unwelcome, or unable to participate in the world around them as it is. They therefore feel isolated and lonely, and that is bad for us all. It is worst, of course, for children and adults with autism who experience that loneliness. New information from the National Autistic Society estimates that autistic people are four times as likely to be lonely as the general public. Four out of five autistic people who responded to the NAS survey said that they felt lonely and socially isolated some of the time. That is shocking and upsetting.

Such isolation is also bad for the parents of children with autism, who told the National Autistic Society that they fear going out because of public ignorance, or they have experienced being judged because of the behaviour of their child—some hon. Members have already mentioned that, in particular the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who spoke so movingly. Such isolation is also bad for the rest of us, because we lose out on the untapped potential that autistic people have to offer as friends, colleagues, participants in civic society, and leaders. Loneliness hurts. Loneliness hurts health, and it keeps too many autistic people from fulfilling their potential.

The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness has done sterling work on this issue, and recently, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was charged with taking on the Government’s loneliness strategy. As they, and the all-party group on loneliness recognise, leaving people to loneliness diminishes all of our humanity. The survey by the National Autistic Society found that 55% of autistic adults want help with social skills, but only 10% actually receive such help; 53% would like employment support, but only 10% receive it; and 70% of autistic adults told the NAS that with more support they would feel less isolated.

Autistic adults experience significant under-employment—only 16% are in full-time work, and a further 16% are in part-time employment. Of the remainder who are not employed, nearly four out of five want to work. Most of us get our daily social interaction from work, and chronic unemployment increases autistic people’s loneliness, as well as keeping them on low incomes and making it harder for them to pursue other interests or travel to meet up with friends, thereby becoming less lonely. A lack of understanding by employers, educational institutions and others is often behind such under-employment and unemployment. I do not wish to repeat what other hon. Members have said, but I refer those listening to the debate to those earlier remarks.

I welcome the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for loneliness, who will be committed to developing a strategy, measurements, and funding for activities to prevent loneliness. Given the high risk of loneliness among autistic people and the parents of autistic children, may I ask the Minister to do everything she can to ensure that the loneliness strategy attends specifically to the needs of autistic people? I further ask her to urge all her colleagues to consult people with autism on that strategy.

Will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to help public awareness of autism, and to help and assist employers to review, and if necessary change, their recruitment procedures? We should encourage public and private organisations to make their spaces truly autism friendly and, as I have said before in this place, perhaps we should start by doing everything we can to make our buildings here on the estate, and our working practices—that will be a challenge for me—more autism friendly, perhaps by thinking about the noises and interventions that we sometimes make.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does my hon. Friend agree that autistic-friendly solutions in no way exclude non-autistic people?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Exactly. My hon. Friend virtually predicted what I was about to say because we would all benefit from a more autism-friendly country. I will do my best to finish well under time, and taking interventions may impact on other people’s time.

We can all help to reduce loneliness for people with autism and the parents of children with autism. Autistic people and their families experience loneliness as a result of things that we can change. Let us all go from this place today determined to lead that change. We are leaders in our communities, so let us lead the change to make the UK truly autism friendly. Let us start today.

Male Suicide

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, though early intervention with mental health is an entirely separate debate, which I suggest would want its own time. I certainly agree with his point.

As I was saying, if a friend is experiencing a suicidal train of thought, a simple chat might be just the thing to break that cycle of thought. It might refer the person to the help they need.

Suicide among men, however, can no longer be seen purely as a health issue. There is a statistically significant relationship between high levels of deprivation and high levels of suicide. That association means that as area-level deprivation increases, the likelihood of suicidal behaviour will probably increase as well.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On that very point about deprivation in what is a very passionate speech, does my hon. Friend agree that such areas show clustering following a suicide? Conversation among all men is doubly important at that stage, to reduce stress in the area.

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those deprived areas people are on average two or three times more likely to experience suicidal behaviour. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are more at risk and less likely to seek help for mental health problems than the more affluent. It bears repeating that, although each person’s suicide is complex and individual, this is a fact that cannot be ignored: a man living in the most deprived area of our country is 10 times more likely to take his own life than a man in the most affluent area. In no uncertain terms, I am saying that for men in deprived areas, inequality kills.

We cannot conclusively draw links between all Government policies and suicide—I would not seek to do so—but I have a growing fear that the Government’s roll-out of universal credit in its current form will exacerbate inequality and could present an increased risk of suicide in deprived areas.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

All I can say is that, right on cue, the Leader of the House has arrived and is sitting right next to me, and I suspect that she has heard my hon. Friend’s request.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the study in 1979 from Primodos that concluded that the visceral malformations should be considered to be drug-related? The manufacturer seems to have made a link that does not appear to have been dealt with in the report. Does he acknowledge that serious concern is being expressed on both sides of the House about the transparency of this report and that it behoves us all to try to make it transparent and understandable and, above all, to get to the correct answer?

[Steve Brine]

Yes, of course we all want to get to the correct answers. Science and clinical practice have moved on significantly since the 1970s. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been far-reaching advances in the regulation of medicines. One of the reasons that the report has been delayed is that it was felt that it needed to contain far more human-speak, rather than official-speak. That is why I said that Ministers now had confidence in the report and the review process and that we are now going to focus on implementing the report’s recommendations.

Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the Minister for facilitating my short contribution this evening.

DIPG is a complex and rare ailment, and, as we have heard, the cause is not yet known, but it is important to note that the condition is no one’s fault. The Help Luke campaign raised more than £181,000 from the community and supporters so that Luke Stewart could seek treatment in Mexico. As a result of the treatment, his tumour started to shrink and die. Support has come from the whole community, including £11,000 raised by Ladies Glitterball in Musselburgh. Luke and his family live in Tranent in East Lothian, and his strength and determination to live a full life have helped him to respond positively to the treatment.

This condition is incredibly rare, yet a second child, Alex Logan, who lives in my home town of Prestonpans in East Lothian—not five miles from Luke—has this year been diagnosed with DIPG. Again, the East Lothian community and the wider community are rallying round by supporting the Action for Alex campaign through the justgiving.com/crowdfunding/susan-logan-l page. Help and support have come from many places, including our local lad Josh Taylor, who on Saturday became the first professional fighter to halt Miguel Vázquez and retain his WBC silver super lightweight belt. Josh is supporting this cause along with Eric Bristow, not in a fight but in a darts match in December. The fighting spirit displayed by Josh Taylor, but also perhaps more, in their own special way, by Luke and Alex, makes me humbled and proud to represent East Lothian. DIPG remains a mystery, but children like Luke and Alex and their families cannot wait for a cure. The time has come to fund research into DIPG here and to bring hope to all children and families suffering as a result of this terrible condition.

Valproate and Foetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I completely agree. I will make the case a little later, but it seems unanswerable and the Government need to reflect on that.

What happened was worse than just the neglect of not telling women. The minutes from the 18 July 1973 meeting of the sub-committee on adverse reactions, a sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, have been uncovered. That document reveals a real outrage, because it talks about keeping the information from women—deliberately withholding it

“especially as it could give rise to fruitless anxiety.”

It continued:

“Nevertheless, they thought it would be best if prescribers were all made aware of the nature of the evidence and recommended that a statement similar to that proposed by ICI”—

in respect of another product—

“could be included in all relevant data sheets but not on package inserts so that there would be no danger of patients themselves seeing it.”

That is extraordinary.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman share my great disappointment if the original documents were to go missing from the archive while these debates and this campaign are ongoing?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Issues such as this are of enormous concern and this raises the question whether there needs to be some sort of inquiry or Hillsborough-style panel to look at exactly how it has happened. However, it is important that we focus on the top priority, which is ensuring that women get told, that this drug is not used inappropriately and that a compensation package of some sort is put in place.