Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

First, I should say thank you to the Minister for presenting this afternoon, and for allowing me to be on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, which was incredibly interesting. There were differing views and there was robust conversation. It is always good to listen to different views, but overall the Bill generally had cross-party support. As Conservative Members have pointed out, many Members of their party have been campaigning for this Bill for a long time.

I am a public health consultant—I trained for 10 to 15 years to be one—and the precondition for public health policy is data and evidence. Opinions are interesting—they can add great colour and character to a conversation—but data and evidence will ultimately deliver better population health outcomes. This public health Bill will stop people dying and will take away addiction to a substance—an addiction that is not a choice.

For many years, there have been public health conversations about whether we should impose measures. This conversation is not new. I wonder how many of us in the House feel strongly these days about wearing seatbelts, but we do not have to go too far back to find a time when people really objected to being told to wear a seatbelt. Tobacco is undoubtedly still the leading cause of premature death and disability in the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Every day, around 160 people are diagnosed with cancer caused by smoking, and smoking causes at least 16 different types of cancer.

I will talk primarily about new clause 13, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). The Bill will do outstanding work to enable a smokefree generation, but we also need to continue to tackle health inequalities for existing smokers. Smoking is harmful, and differences in smoking prevalence across the population translate into major differences in death rates and illness. We in this place come together from across the country and represent different constituencies. We want the best health outcomes, among many other things, for our residents. It is therefore incumbent on us to look at inequalities and where they reside, and to legislate against them where possible.

Smoking is the single largest driver of health inequalities in England. It is far more common among people with lower incomes, and I am happy to discuss with any Members why that is. The more disadvantaged someone is, the more likely they are to smoke, to suffer from smoking-related disease, and to suffer a premature death. Smoking-related health inequalities are not related solely to socioeconomic status. We represent different parts of the United Kingdom. The poorer health of people in the north of England is in part due to higher rates of smoking there. Smoking rates are also higher among people with a mental health condition, people in contact with the criminal justice system, looked-after children and LGBT people. We all have different types of people in our constituencies, and we should be mindful of those inequalities and the need to address them.

Health inequalities will be reduced through measures that have a greater effect on smokers in higher prevalence groups. In practice, that means prioritising population-level interventions that disadvantaged smokers are more sensitive to, and targeting interventions on those smokers. Having run smoking cessation services during my time as a public health consultant, I can absolutely say that it is incredibly difficult for anybody to give up smoking. We have Members who have succeeded, and who are perhaps still trying to give up. To give up smoking, a person needs to be in a place where they have the mental resilience and can put time and energy into quitting. If they are fighting all the other issues that come with the burdens of being poorer—if they are fighting for employment or trying to feed their children—it is so much harder.

My hon. Friend has proposed a road map to a smokefree country, and a report to this place every five years. I am not particularly wedded to that, but we should be laser-focused on reducing health inequalities across all populations. I therefore hope that our Government will consider having a reporting process similar to the one in new clause 13 among the changes to the national health service. In the Health and Social Care Committee this morning, we were talking about where the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will go following the dissolution of NHS England. This is an ongoing conversation that we need to be mindful of.

We need to ensure that the ongoing importance of addressing health disparities is not lost, and I think that is front and centre of the Secretary of State’s agenda in the 10-year plan. On behalf of public health consultants and professionals, I commend the Bill to the House, and I am proud to be part of a Government and a Parliament that will bring this life-changing piece of legislation to the country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I want to speak to amendment 4 and the subsequent amendments in my name, and to new clause 3. It is right that where a public health issue is identified, this body should look at whether anything can be done about it through law, fiscal policy, or the other levers available to us, but we should ask ourselves, when we introduce laws, what the consequences are. Are there any unintended consequences, and how practical and enforceable are the measures? If they are unenforceable, all we do is bring the law and this place into disrepute. While some have described this Bill as well-meaning, essential, a flagship Bill, and a show of leadership, I am concerned that we have given little thought to, and had little debate about, the consequences, which are hitting us in the face. Let us be honest with ourselves: it would be good to walk away at the end of today’s sitting and say, “We have done a wonderful thing for future generations; we have introduced laws that will do away with smoking and will improve the health of the nation,” but we are ignoring the fact that we have introduced legislation that is unworkable, and to which I believe, through my amendments, there is an alternative.

[Jim Dickson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that many warned before the 2007 smoking ban that it would be unenforceable, and that there would be barely any compliance with it? However, from day one, there was 97% compliance. That law has helped to drive a reduction in cancers due to secondary smoking, and a massive number of people gave up as a result of no longer being able to smoke in the pub.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member will have the answer to that if he reflects on what we are debating today. We introduced that legislation, yet here we are, revisiting the issue, because people are still smoking and health outcomes are still bad—and we have additional problems, which I will come to in a moment, namely the illegal purchase and supply of tobacco. We have tried this in the past—we have tried bans and all kinds of other measures—yet we still have the problem with us.

Let us consider the consequences. First, we are being asked to introduce legislation, the burden of which will fall on retailers, because it is at the point of purchase that the scrutiny required by the Bill, and its implementation, will have to take place. There is a question that we have not debated yet: what happens when a retailer is faced in a few years’ time with two people, one aged 29 and the other 28, both demanding tobacco? One says “I’m 29” and the other says “I’m 29 as well.” The retailer is meant to distinguish which of them he can sell tobacco to legally. That is a real, practical problem, and it places a burden on the retailer, because if he does not make the right decision, he faces a fine and the removal of his license, and that source of income for his business will be affected.

[Jack Rankin]

I agree about the practicalities of needing to pick between two adults of similar age in a shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the person selling the cigarettes will probably be a shop lad aged 18 or 19? He will have to draw a distinction between adults much older than him. We should consider the position that puts that young gentleman in.

[Sammy Wilson]

That was the next point I was going to come to; the hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was going to say. We will place a burden not just on the retailer, but on those who work in the retailer’s store. We are concerned about assaults on retail staff; we have taken legislation on the subject through the House. The evidence from the British Retail Consortium is that many of those assaults take place when goods are denied to individuals because they cannot offer identification and show their age, so we are placing retailers and those who work in shops in great danger. There may be a safeguard against that in some of the bigger stores that have security guards, but many of the shops that sell tobacco are small corner retailers that do not have security guards, or even anyone in the shop other than the shopkeeper or the person behind the counter. Yet we are demanding that they implement the legislation, regardless of how practical or impractical it is for individuals to make a distinction between somebody who is 37 and somebody who is 36, or whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short and the term “you” refers to me in the Chair.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is easier to distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old. Usually, the younger the age, the easier it is to make that determination, but it is much more difficult when people are older, yet that distinction will have to be made.

The idea may be that the cost of the licence will be so expensive that many small retailers will be squeezed out of the market, and the only outlets will be bigger stores where there are security guards. However, the sale of tobacco provides an important part of the income of many small retailers. Whether we like it or not, we are putting a burden on people who will find that they are exposed to dangers and difficulties, and will be subject to the law if they make the wrong decision.

The second issue, which has been touched on today, is what happens when people cannot get the tobacco that they want. Where do they go? They go to people who are prepared to sell it to them illegally. We cannot run away from the fact that the sale of illegal tobacco is already lucrative, especially because of the tax increases that we have introduced. It is lucrative for criminal gangs and it funds many of their activities. We have heard statistics that 7% of cigarettes and 33% of rolling tobacco are already sold by criminal gangs. In Northern Ireland, it is probably far higher because paramilitaries were involved in the trade and used it to fund their activities for so long. If anybody thinks, “Oh well, we’ll deal with that problem when it comes,” look at the history of Northern Ireland, where hundreds of millions of pounds found its way into the coffers of terror gangs and action was not taken, because it was sometimes too hard or too difficult to trace the things. Yes, action has now been taken, but do not think that we are going to have an all-out assault on the booming industry that this legislation will produce.

My last point about the Bill being impractical is that it cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as part of the EU single market, we are under the tobacco products directive. The Irish Republic tried to introduce similar legislation and found that it could not because of that directive. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, challenging the Government to amend the Windsor framework so that the legislation will apply across the United Kingdom. This is not a counsel of despair because I believe that there is an alternative, as set out in the amendment. Indeed, the Government’s own modelling suggests that a much more practical way is to set the age limit at 21.

If the figures and the modelling are correct—although there are questions about the tobacco modelling on doing away with smoking in a generation—and if we impose the age limit of 21, which avoids some of the problems we have talked about with the sale of tobacco, we reach zero consumption by 2050, just as we do with the generational model. That avoids many of the problems and difficulties I have outlined and the consequences for retailers, rather than rushing into this. It is a headline-grabbing measure, but it has not worked elsewhere. Why did New Zealand drop it? Because of the booming market in illegal tobacco. I believe that in a number of years, we will find that we made the same mistake.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

For me, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a landmark opportunity to improve health outcomes for people in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, as well as people across the whole United Kingdom. Almost 80,000 people die each year from smoking-related illness, and many of my constituents have told me they wish that they had never started smoking in the first place. With this Bill, we draw a line under the public health tragedy that tobacco has caused over too many decades. On top of the tragedy of 80,000 deaths, every year smoking costs the NHS more than £3 billion and sees our economy lose more than £18 billion in productivity. This Bill is the bold action that our country needs and that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun will benefit from.

I am proud that this Labour Government are standing up to the tobacco lobby with the banning of tobacco products for anyone born in or after 2009. That radical change will save lives. In my constituency, I have seen people as young as 12 puffing on vapes on their way to school and when returning home. That is a huge concern for the health and wellbeing of those young people, and the ease of access that they have to vapes is simply unacceptable.

International Health Regulations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate and pertinent point. Throughout the negotiations the UK has made it clear—and we will continue to do so—that we will not sign up to any accord that fails to meet our global health and UK health security priorities. Likewise, the UK would not sign up to an accord that cedes sovereignty to the WHO over domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as immunisation programmes or lockdowns. Any necessary or appropriate changes to domestic legislation or new domestic legislation would be made through the usual parliamentary process. However, because we do not yet know the exact details of the accord, I cannot be any clearer on how exactly Parliament will get to scrutinise the accord, if we get to an agreement.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The treaty is not just about data sharing and information gathering; it is also about setting up a system of pandemic management under the leadership of the WHO. It has a poor history of management and decision making. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will not accept any surrendering of UK powers to an international body that can interfere with decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people here in the United Kingdom? I listened to his response about devolved Governments, and it seems there has not been much discussion with the devolved Administrations. He will not even guarantee a vote in this House on such an important issue. Can he guarantee that we will not undemocratically hand over democratic control to a non-democratic body?

[Andrew Stephenson]

We will not be handing over any kind of control over what we do domestically; national sovereignty is a clear red line, as I made clear in my opening remarks. It is important to recognise that there are challenges with these things, which are being negotiated within the existing international health regulations. The director general of the World Health Organisation already has the ability to declare a public health event of international concern and issue temporary recommendations that provide non-binding guidance to member states. We believe that we need to stay in a situation where the World Health Organisation has an important convening role internationally to discuss issues, but the domestic response to any future pandemic is for domestic Governments to make. Anything that impinges on UK national sovereignty will therefore be unacceptable to us.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

First, I want to put on record my thanks to the public health Minister the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and the chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty, who spent time answering my questions and those of some of my colleagues. It was a very collegiate exercise and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. It would be good to see more of that.

The Government proposals on vapes are an absolute no-brainer and are consistent with Liberal Democrat party policy that was adopted at our conference last year, including the ban on single-use vapes on environmental grounds. Parents and teachers in St Albans are particularly concerned about the insidious marketing of vapes to young people: the colours, flavours and packaging are designed to appeal to children. Earlier in the debate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) talked about children gathering in toilets, desperate to use their vapes. I am aware, unfortunately, of one example in my constituency where children have gathered in toilets not just to use the vapes but to take them apart to use as containers for smuggling in more dangerous substances, thereby using the vapes as a new gateway drug. I therefore entirely support the Government’s proposals on the regulation of vapes.

The question of a so-called smoking ban on those aged 15 and younger, stopping them being sold cigarettes, is not so straightforward, however. For Liberal Democrats there will be a free vote on this Bill; there are some good liberal arguments to be made both for and against it. I will be supporting the measures in the Bill, but some of my colleagues have remaining liberal and practical concerns. For example, in 30 years’ time how does somebody prove they are 46 and not 45 without a driver’s licence or a passport? How can we prevent abuse at retailers, too? I hope the Government will be providing more reassurances to colleagues on these issues.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that that difficulty puts the onus on the retailer, who is meant to distinguish between a 45-year-old and a 46-year-old, and if they do not do that or they do so incorrectly, they could find themselves faced with a fine? Is that fair?

[Daisy Cooper]

Colleagues across the House have genuine concerns about that point. I know from engagements in my constituency that a number of retailers already suffer attacks when challenging people wishing to buy other age-related products, so I hope the Government will offer reassurances about what they intend to do to tackle that.

As I have said, I will be supporting the measures in this Bill, but coming to that decision was a bit of a journey for me. My first reaction on hearing of the Bill before it was published was indignation, because the measures are just a drop in the ocean in terms of what is needed to tackle cancer. One in two of us will get cancer at some point, yet the Government have missed their targets to provide fast cancer treatment every year since 2015 and have dropped their 10-year cancer plan. What we need is research in rare cancers, outdated cancer scanners updated, cancer nurses and efforts to tackle waiting times. It would perhaps have been better if the measures in this Bill had been a single clause in a much broader Bill. To be honest, I am frustrated that so much energy is going into this Bill, which could be described as low-hanging fruit, rather than into producing a much more ambitious plan to tackle cancer more broadly. We need to see more ambition in this area.

My second reaction was the raising of my liberal hackles. Liberals are not libertarians; we do not object to all bans. Liberals support bans as a last resort, but not as a first lever. The situation here is frustrating, however: it is a bit rich that the Government are bringing this Bill forward when they have simultaneously been slashing public health budgets, including for smoking cessation programmes, since 2015. Even with the new money the Government have put into smoking cessation programmes, the funds still fall far short of 2015 levels. We also know that smoking rates among young people have dropped very quickly; they are now down to 1% and continue to drop.

Liberals do sometimes back bans when a particular product or practice causes excessive harm, and that is why I have decided to back this ban. Fundamentally, I asked myself a simple question: is this going to help reduce the overwhelming harm caused by the significantly dangerous and addictive practice of smoking? The answer is yes, it is. We know that smoking is dangerous and highly addictive. We know that smoking is the UK’s biggest preventable killer, causing around one in four cancer deaths, including 64,000 in England alone. We know that 75,000 GP appointments each month are taken up by smoking-related illness. We know that smoking costs the economy £17 billion a year through smoking-related lost earnings, unemployment and early death. We know that it comes at enormous cost to our NHS, and we know that smoking rates in pregnancy vary hugely, with as many as 20% of pregnant women smoking in some parts of the country, increasing the chance of stillbirth by almost 50%. That is an incredibly stark health inequality.

Some people have suggested it could be contradictory for a liberal to support a ban on tobacco for 15-year-olds and younger while wanting to legalise cannabis, but let me say to them that they are wrong. It is entirely consistent for a liberal to want to make harmful products illegal—harmful products such as nicotine in cigarettes, skunk and products with high THC levels that can cause psychosis—while simultaneously wanting to have a legal regulated market for less harmful products such as vapes for nicotine and cannabis products with low and regulated THC levels.

In conclusion, do I think this measure is the first or best thing that the Government should be doing to tackle cancer? No. Do I think this measure is particularly ambitious? No. But do I think it is a useful step that will help us to tackle the dangerous health impacts of smoking addiction, to improve population health and to take pressure off the NHS? Personally, I do.

Cass Review

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We want to not just help with crisis support, but prevent our young people from getting into a position of crisis in the first place, so we are rolling out mental health support teams, ahead of our schedule, across schools. That is a really important piece of work that will help 44% of the student population, but we want to go even further. In the 12-month period ending in March 2021, we increased the number of children and young people aged under 18 who received NHS-funded mental health services to some 758,000. Of course, we want that support to be there in the community, but importantly we also want to help clinicians to understand that this is just one of several sets of conditions that they should have confidence to work on, in order to look after the child holistically.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the vile campaigns directed towards anyone who disagrees with the transgender lobby, we should congratulate Dr Cass and her team on having the courage to write their report, and the Secretary of State on her robust defence of it. In the light of the report, and given that it seems that the transgender lobby has infiltrated the NHS in England, what steps is she taking to purge that lobby from the NHS? What discussions has she had with Ministers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that the same policies and practices are not carried out in the public and private sectors there?

[Victoria Atkins]

The reason why I am able to be so robust on this issue is that I believe in it; on that, I may be different from others. The challenge that the right hon. Gentleman rightly puts forward is that we have to ensure that NHS England acts as an organisation, but also at the individual and local levels, to implement the reforms that the report recommends. I want to be fair to clinicians, medical professionals, managers and others who very much support the review. I want to support them in taking up the recommendations. What individual clinicians may or may not have done in the past will be a matter for both NHS England and the regulators going forward. The moral and professional expectation is that in future, clinicians, medical professionals and all of us will respect the evidence and the recommendations of this important report.

Vaccination Strategy

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

As my hon. Friend said, to date over 93% of NHS staff have had their first jab. I want to put out a plea. We already have vaccination as a condition of deployment in the care sector and we did not see the cliff edge that so many people predicted. In terms of my own personal circumstances, my father was in a care home for over seven years and his carers became his family. We always do the best for our family and want to make sure that they are protected in the same way that we are protected, and that carries through to NHS staff as well, and to those in other Care Quality Commission-regulated organisations. It is about patient safety: at the end of the day, we are looking to make sure that every patient is kept safe.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I must say that I am amazed at the Minister’s complacency about the potential loss of staff as a result of the vaccine mandate. The care sector has lost 54,000 people who refused to take the vaccine, with the result that hospital beds are blocked, care packages are not being given and care homes are under pressure. The social care sector is an indication that we cannot force people to take the vaccine, and the Minister’s own assessment is that up to 88,000 staff could resist taking it. In the past week, 40,000 people in the NHS have been off work because they had to isolate, and we have seen the chaos that has caused. How does she intend to deal with the chaos of 88,000 staff not being available because of the vaccine mandate?

[Maggie Throup]

I do not recognise the data given by the right hon. Gentleman. We have already invested £465 million in a recruitment and retention programme for care home staff. It is important to recognise that caring is a worthwhile career. The carers I have met are really dedicated and get a lot from it. I come back to the fact that it is important to keep the most vulnerable in our society safe, whether they are care home residents or patients who are acutely ill in hospital.

Public Health

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

We are, as the hon. Lady would imagine, working very closely with directors of public health throughout England, whether on testing or other areas. On PCR testing capacity specifically, capacity is usually roughly 600,000 a day, but it is already being expanded to about 800,000 a day, and it will be further expanded. It is important for hon. Members to know that testing is released at different times of day, so if someone checks the system and a test is not available, it might be available in their local area in the next couple of hours—it is not just a day-by-day process. As the process is surged, tests will become much more easily available. It is also important to remind people whenever one can that a PCR test should be used only if someone has symptoms; otherwise, lateral flow tests should be deployed.

Finally, I turn to measures to help keep the health and care system safe for the long term by making vaccination a condition of deployment for more health and social care settings. Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of us have made the positive choice to accept the offer of a vaccination against covid-19, and 91% of NHS staff have already had two doses, but we need that figure to go even higher. Uptake rates vary among health and care organisations and across the country; despite the incredible effort to boost uptake across the country, approximately 94,000 NHS staff are still unvaccinated. It is critical to patient safety that health and care staff get the jab to protect some of the most vulnerable people who are in their care and keep the NHS workforce strong in the wake of omicron.

We made vaccination against covid-19 a condition of deployment in care homes from 11 November this year. Contrary to what some people feared, we are not aware of any care home closures in which vaccination as a condition of deployment has been the primary cause. The regulations that we are putting before the House today will extend that requirement to health and other social care settings.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State pointed out that the capacity of the health service is important and should not be breached. If 9% of staff to date have decided not to be vaccinated and will presumably stick with that decision, how does he expect that that will not reduce the capacity of the health service in future? Is it not a fact that there are already many people staying in hospital because a care home cannot be facilitated owing to lack of staff?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. I will answer precisely that question in just a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, in order for this measure to work as effectively as we would wish, there has to be an adequate supply of lateral flow tests. I heard what the Secretary of State said yesterday about the availability of testing, but it is no good if the tests are in the warehouse; they need to be available to people where they need them, when they need them. We have had supply issues and those really do need to be resolved, not least in the light of other measures, which I will come to shortly.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that rather than giving confidence to people, these measures, and the background against which they have been introduced, have actually reduced confidence? We have predictions of 75,000 deaths and we are telling people that they cannot go to venues unless they have certain tests; the experience in Northern Ireland is that the hospitality industry has already lost millions of pounds in orders coming up to the Christmas period because people are afraid to go out.

Public Health

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.

I do not understand the timing here. What will we really know in three weeks’ time that we do not know now? This causes me to question the three-week rule. South Africa does not give us the insight into the progress of the virus, and of this variant, that we were able to take from, say, Italy—with a broadly similar European population—this time last year. South Africa has a much younger population, and, sadly, a greatly under-vaccinated population. As we heard from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, it was spreading like wildfire among students, who, of course, are younger and fitter and therefore less susceptible to serious illness as a result of this variant.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. Does he accept that the evidence from South Africa so far suggests that there have been very few hospitalisations, while we in the United Kingdom are introducing regulations that are causing economic disruption, are causing people further anxiety, and will disrupt all of Christmas because of this variant when we do not even know whether it will have a severe impact on the UK in any event?

[Steve Brine]

I do accept that, and I also accept that the scientists who discovered the variant said on the media at the weekend that this was often a less serious disease than the delta variant. However, notwithstanding the point that I have just made about the people whom it has affected in South Africa—younger, unvaccinated people—given that numbers are so small in this country, I fail to see how we will be any the wiser in three weeks’ time. That may explain why the isolation regulations will apply until next March. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me, through an intervention now or in winding up the debate.

Finally, let me return to the situation in my constituency. I have raised this matter twice in the House. This morning I spoke to the Winchester City primary care network, which is responsible for some 62,000 people who are on its roll. PCN patients will be contacted if they are in one of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s groups 1 to 9, if they are clinically extremely vulnerable or if they are over 50, and will have been offered a booster. The PCN expects that process to be complete by 17 December, and by the middle of January it will start to offer the booster to others. From that date onwards the booster will be offered to those aged 18 and over, following the welcome announcement from the Secretary of State during his statement yesterday.

Many of my constituents do not live in the area covered by the Winchester City PCN, but have access to vaccinations at the Badger Farm community centre. If they consult the NHS website, they are offered the opportunity to go to Salisbury, Portsmouth or Southampton. That is not easy access to the booster. In my constituency there is no easy walk-in access to it, and I am inundated by questions from constituents about why they cannot have such easy access in Winchester today. The difference between what is being said on television and by Ministers from the Dispatch Box and the reality of the access available on the frontline is growing, and it is a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

The point that I am trying to make is that the Government are framing the introduction of these specific restrictions in terms of whether or not there is extra transmissibility from the new variant. My concern is that they are not talking about whether we need these restrictions, and perhaps others in the future, because of the pressures on the NHS in its broadest sense.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady is making an important and relevant point. Would she not accept, however, that these restrictions place a burden on businesses, on people’s individual freedom and on the operation of the education system, all to deal with a problem that is not going to go away as long as we have patients going to accident and emergency because their GPs are not seeing them, and as long as we have patients taking up beds in hospitals because they are not going into care? This will not be solved simply by introducing more regulations that put the burden on private industry because of the failures of the health service.

[Daisy Cooper]

I disagree with some of those points. As a liberal, I believe fundamentally in giving people the most personal freedom they can have up to the point at which it interferes with the personal freedom of others. We hear a lot in this House about personal freedom, particularly from those on the Conservative Benches, but there is very little discussion about our broader responsibilities to others. That is the challenge that we as legislators have in this House: it is about getting the balance right. I do not think this is about putting restrictions on businesses because of the failures of our health service. GPs in particular are struggling with their workloads and with the abuse resulting from campaigns against them that are being led by national newspapers. If we had a stronger workforce to deal with these issues, and if the NHS had not been run into the ground, we would have more frontline health workers to deal with these problems right now. However, I am mindful of the Deputy Speaker’s entreaty to stick to the regulations, to which I now want to return.

As I said at the start, we will support these regulations. I agree with other Members that it is vital we have full scrutiny of any decision to repeal, extend or renew the regulations in any shape or form in the coming weeks. I implore the Government to take action and consider these restrictions in the light not only of this new variant but of the overall pressures across our NHS, whether on GPs, ambulance services or elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I thank them for their fantastic leadership on this issue.

I want to develop one point specifically: I believe that Government must take a balanced view. I accept the argument made by various people, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), that the precautionary principle is good. I think we can be criticised for potentially not acting quickly enough at the beginning of the pandemic two years ago, but overreaction is not good. We have had a damaging obsession with a very narrow view of what we perceive to be health. The poorer you are and the younger you are in this society, the higher the price you have paid, and that is not acceptable.

I look at this debate and this motion in the context of some dreadful forecasts and dreadful assessments that have driven Government’s nervousness. I want to explore them and put them on record because I believe it is in the public interest, but I do so within the terms of the motion. I want to look particularly at Imperial College and Professor Ferguson. I have a great deal of respect for them and I will be careful how I phrase this, but I am concerned that some of the forecasting we have had has had a track record in, frankly, getting it wrong repeatedly. In 2001, Professor Ferguson predicted 150,000 human deaths from foot-and-mouth; under 200 died. In 2002, he predicted between 50 and 50,000 deaths from BSE; in the end, 177 died. In 2005, he said that 150 million people could be killed by bird flu; 282 died. In 2009, a Government estimate based on his advice said that a “reasonable worst-case scenario” for swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths; in the end, 457 people died. I am happy to be corrected on any of those points, but that is the publicly available information.

Moving forward to covid, Ferguson predicted 85,000 deaths in Sweden; in fact, 6,000 Swedes have died. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said in September 2020:

“We looked at the”

Imperial

“model and we could see that the variables that were put into the model were quite extreme...Why did you choose the variables that gave extreme results?

I love experts—don’t get me wrong; I know we sometimes have our issues with them—but it is helpful if they are right, if only very occasionally. Johan Giesecke, Sweden’s former chief epidemiologist, said that Ferguson’s models were “not very good”. The Washington Post quoted Giesecke as saying that Imperial’s forecasts were “almost hysterical”. This is the forecasting that has been, in part, driving Government action.

In this country, oncology professor Angus Dalgleish, in this country, described Ferguson’s modelling as “lurid predictions”. He said that Ferguson and his colleagues were getting it “spectacularly wrong”. He said:

“Unfortunately, we have a Sage committee advising a government that is devoid of any scientific expertise, on speculative concepts such as the R number”—

which we now all know is the reproductive rate—

“and the need for everyone to stay indoors, even though the evidence strongly suggests that people are less likely to catch Covid-19 outside.”

So some of the scientific evidence may have actually driven the rising covid rates in the same way that going into hospital may have been the place that people caught covid and died from it.

Viscount Ridley has criticised Ferguson’s modelling. Lund University has applied Ferguson’s models and found a massive difference between his predictions and what actually happened. Professor Michael Thrusfield from Edinburgh University said that Ferguson’s previous modelling of foot-and-mouth was “severely flawed”.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in highlighting the predictions that are wrong, but the unfortunate thing is that politicians then jump on to them and quote them. For example, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, on the basis of Mr Ferguson’s predictions, talked about deaths “of biblical proportions” and scared the life out of people.

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point most eloquently. Politicians then become fearful. They think, “What if the worst-case scenario is right?”, and lose faith in more balanced predictions.

John Ioannides from Stanford University said of Ferguson’s modelling that

“major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated”.

He is a serious customer, Professor Ferguson, and Imperial has an impeccable reputation. I pay respect, overall, to their work, and I do not seek to criticise for the sake of it; I want to highlight that bad forecasting and bad modelling drives bad Government decisions that then become illiberal and intolerant of other people who have more balanced views.

More recently, in July 2021, Ferguson predicted 100,000 cases, saying that it was “almost inevitable”. Yet we got nowhere near there. The US forecaster Nate Silver, who is very good at predicting US elections, said:

“I don’t care that the prediction is wrong, I’m sure this stuff is hard to predict. It’s that he’s consistently so overconfident.”



The political scientist Professor Philip Tetlock agreed with Nate Silver, adding:

“Expect even top forecasters to make lots of mistakes…When smart forecasters are consistently over-confident, start suspecting”

other factors in play, such as

“publicity or policy-advocacy games”.

I make no such allegations.

More recently, I understand that this summer Professor Ferguson predicted upwards of 100,000 cases. They topped at just over 30,000. In an interview with The Times, the good professor said that his prediction was off because the football messed up his modelling. That for me comes to the essence of the problem with forecasting. When someone can predict 100 million deaths and no one dies but someone gets a sore thumb, they can say mitigations were taken by Government. When a forecaster’s work becomes verifiable, we can see when he predicts and gets it wrong. When that forecast comes up against reality, reality kicks in and makes a fool of the forecast and sometimes, sadly, a fool of the forecaster. Every time Professor Ferguson’s forecasts have been verifiable, they have been seen to be very badly flawed, and this is a serious man and a serious university.

To sum up, if we look at the forecasts made about covid, just like the forecasts for so many other things, reality changes those forecasts and very often undermines their credibility, so we need another set of factors to guide us. Members on the Opposition Benches and on this side have said we need principles. We need a precautionary principle, but we need a sense of balance so that we do not overstep the mark, damage our society, damage our young people and damage poorer people by seeking to control when we need to learn to live with this. My final question to the Minister is: will the Government look into forecasting and perhaps hold an inquiry into the success of forecasting and what we can learn from it, so that we do it less badly in future?

Finally, going from the theoretical to the very practicable, and on a point related to the Isle of Wight, we are not getting the boosters in the Riverside Centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) raised a specific point about his constituency, and in the same way, will the Minister please look at getting more booster jabs to the Isle of Wight and our Riverside Centre?

Covid-19 Vaccinations: 12 to 15-year-olds

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Sammy Wilson.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I have great sympathy for the Minister for having to come here to try to respond to the latest musings from the Prime Minister’s mind. I believe he is saying that when this morning the Prime Minister said that the programme was going ahead, the final advice had not been received and, indeed, while preparations are ongoing, there may be subsequent advice that once again changes everything. Is that what the Minister is saying? How does he expect people to have confidence when the information coming from the Government appears to be so arbitrary and constantly changing, with no real clarity or medical robustness to it at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not too many people pretend to be me—not even in my own party.

I find the Minister’s statement rather bizarre. First, the main medical reason given for the decision is not to protect young people from covid but to protect their mental health, their educational wellbeing and their ability to associate in society. Does he accept, first, that the way this measure will be rolled out could lead to children being bullied, stigmatised and named on Instagram, Twitter and so on, because the whole school will know whether they go for a vaccine or not, and secondly, given that school principals can make the decision whether a group of individuals, a class or a year group is closed down if people are found to have tested positive in the school, that this is no guarantee that educational disadvantage will not be attacked either?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s question. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. First, he will know that school bubbles have gone. The school-age vaccination programme and those clinicians are really very well equipped and very well versed in dealing with vaccines in schools, so this will not be a new thing for them. Their ability to gain consent and communicate exactly why the chief medical officers have gone ahead is, in my view, an important element of the decision to accept the recommendation tonight. So I would say quite the opposite: it is right that we accept the recommendation tonight.

As I said in my statement, no one—no parent or child—should be stigmatised for making a decision. We have been transparent all the way through this process, and we have been incredibly careful, as we have demonstrated. Many other countries now boast that their vaccination programmes have reached far higher numbers than ours. I have always said that this is not a race; it is about doing the right thing for children and adults to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic.

Coronavirus

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I would dearly love that, and I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who, as I well know, is an enthusiast. I would love it if we could make that so—let us see.

Finally, I want to tell the House about the results of our consultation on vaccination as a condition of deployment in care homes. After careful consultation, we have decided to take this proposal forward, to protect residents. The vast majority of staff in care homes are already vaccinated, but not all of them are. We know that the vaccine protects not only you, but those around you. Therefore we will be taking forward the measures to ensure the “mandation” as a condition of deployment for staff in care homes, and we will consult on the same approach in the NHS, in order to save lives and protect patients from disease.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State then explain to the House whether visitors to care homes or to hospitals will also require proof of vaccination? Will delivery drivers require it? Will others who provide other services to those care homes and hospitals require the same? Is he not now walking down the road of requiring mandatory vaccination for almost everyone?

[Matt Hancock]

No, I do not agree with mandatory vaccination of the public, but for those who have a duty to care, in an environment that includes some of the most vulnerable people in the country, I think this is a sensible and reasonable step in order to save lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Like the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) I will not support the Government this evening, but it will not be with a heavy heart; it will be because I have a real conviction that what is being done and the approach that the Government have taken on this issue is wrong. We have heard again today, as we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister, that the very basis of pushing and promoting the policy is to instil fear into the hearts of people across the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister yesterday said that we have to delay because the new variant could kill people in ways that we cannot foresee, or do not understand. It is the same old message: “If you do not obey the restrictions, you are in danger—either of dying yourself or of your relatives dying. You can’t put your nose out the door. You can’t do the things you want to do in normal life, because there’s a real danger you’ll die.” Of course, the statistics show that of those who contract coronavirus a very small proportion, less than 0.3%, actually die. Even the World Health Organisation has said that many of those deaths may not even be attributable to coronavirus anyway. If someone has been tested for coronavirus 28 days before they die in a car accident they still qualify as a coronavirus death. So the statistics themselves have even been used in a way to try to reinforce the message of fear.

I wish to make two points today. The first is that if we follow the logic of what we have heard from the Minister and the Prime Minister in the past two days, we will never get away from the restrictions we are living with at present, because the Minister has admitted that we will have to live with coronavirus, and we know that it will mutate, so we will get different versions of it. If we get different versions, we will be told, “This version is different from the last version. It is more dangerous. It is more contagious. It leads to more deaths. It leads to higher infection rates.” And so on and so on. We will be told that there is therefore a justification for keeping the restrictions in place.

Indeed, we heard from the Minister today not only about the current restrictions; we know that we are going to have further restrictions in the future. Those who work in the care sector are going to be forced to have a vaccination. He did not answer the question, but I assume that people visiting anybody in a hospital or care home are going to have to prove they have had a vaccination. Are peripheral workers going to have to have the vaccination? We can see already that the Government are thinking that people have accepted these restrictions and there will be other things in the future that are going to be forced on them.

Let me come to my second point. The Minister said he was going to follow the data, so let me tell him about some data: unemployment in my constituency has gone up by more than 100% as a result of restrictions. Businesses are going under. Between now and “terminus day” many people will find their employment terminated, their business terminated, their livelihoods terminated, and for those reasons, I will not be voting for these restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman find rather odd not only the absence of Opposition Members, but the fact that the Government are comfortable about getting the restrictions through only because they have the support of the Labour party, and yet most Labour Members who have spoken today have condemned the Government for their actions?

[Mr Bone]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman—may I call him my right hon. Friend from across the aisle? He has, of course, been here for the whole debate.

This debate is about the liberty of the British people. We are taking away something that is our right. For instance, I am due to go to a wedding, but I cannot have a group of friends round to my house beforehand because there would be too many of us. When I get to church, I cannot sing. I cannot sing anyway, but I am not allowed to sing. Then I cannot dance at the wedding—[Interruption.] I cannot dance, either. More importantly, as the evening drags out, I cannot then go to a nightclub to boogie the night away in celebration. The following day, I cannot go for a park run to run all these problems off, so I might need to call a doctor, but I cannot go and see a doctor because they will not do face-to-face appointments. This is withdrawing our very liberty.

I am a great fan of the Prime Minister, and I think most Conservative Members are. He came to lead the Conservative party at the end of the Bercow Parliament, when Parliament was in chaos. He took us through a general election, he won a mandate, he delivered Brexit, he dealt with the awful covid pandemic and he has led the world with the vaccine programme, yet tonight, unfortunately, I cannot support him. I think every Member has to put their country first, their constituency second and their party third. On very many—indeed, most—occasions, all those three are in line, but this time I do not think the Government have made the case for putting off unlocking.

With apologies to Mark Twain, there are lies, damned lies and covid statistics, and the Government have been using an extraordinary propaganda machine to take certain statistics to try to prove their case, but if we look at other statistics, we can see that the total number of deaths at the moment is running below the five-year average. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said that he had very few cases in his area. In Northamptonshire, thankfully, our two hospitals have zero covid patients and we have not had a death due to covid for five weeks. The Government made their own original forecasts for what would happen on 17 May when we did the major unlocking, but we have done better than their best prediction of the situation, so why have we now gone into this doom and gloom?

I have no doubt that if we were in opposition, our Benches would now be packed and there would be this blond guy, fairly chubby and a bit scruffy—well, as scruffy as me—jumping up and down and making the case for getting rid of these restrictions. I know it is a balance and I know people have to make a choice, but we, as Conservatives, believe in personal responsibility and common sense. Going back to my original example, of course I would not go into a busy nightclub, and of course I would not have 100 friends round, but that would be my decision, not the decision of the state. So unfortunately, as much as I like the Prime Minister, I think he has got this wrong, and I will vote against the regulations tonight.

Covid-19 Update

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the figure for transmissibility reduction from the first dose. The figures for the reduction in serious disease and death are, as he says, higher than that, but since I do not have the precise figures in my head, what I propose to do is set them out tomorrow at the Dispatch Box at Health questions.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

The Secretary of State seems to be the master of mixed messages. Today, he tells us that the vaccination programme is going well, cases are down and hospital admissions have fallen, yet at the weekend, he was telling us that he is still open to removing the date for freedom day—21 June—and keeping restrictions in place. A few weeks ago, he was telling people that they could go to Portugal, yet, despite Portugal having lower infection rates than we do and only 1.5% of people being tested positive on return from Portugal, he has now put it on the amber list, costing the airline industry millions of pounds and putting holidaymakers to great expense. Does he understand the frustration that businesses and individuals have at the way in which, acting on his advice, they take precautions, spend money and take actions that they think are right, yet find that, when he changes his message, they are placed at a disadvantage?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I understand those frustrations—of course I do—and that is why we would all like to be out of this pandemic, but John Maynard Keynes’ famous dictum comes to mind, which is: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” A pandemic is a hard thing to manage and communicating uncertainty in the public sphere is difficult. When answering questions about uncertainty, I think the fairest thing that any of us at the Government Dispatch Box can do is answer fully and frankly to the best of our knowledge and understanding, and that does include things where there is evidence on one side and evidence on the other. We had a question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that described only the negative side of what we are seeing in the data, but on the positive side we are seeing the impact of vaccinations that the right hon. Gentleman just mentioned. There are two sides to the story, and that is why some of the judgments are difficult. That is why we will wait until we have the most data possible, with a week to spare, so that people can implement the decisions we make regarding 21 June.