Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)]

My hon. Friend rightly flags the excellent work going on to improve access to mental health services across the country. Last year, 3.6 million people got mental health support. That is an increase of around 30% in just three years, supported by record funding of over £16 billion into mental health care.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid could save many thousands of children from spina bifida, so why is it happening so slowly, at such a low level and applied to too few products?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

I assure the hon. Member that we remain firmly committed to the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. That will help to protect around 200 babies each year from being born with neural tube defects. The policy is being delivered across the UK as part of a wider review of bread and flour regulations. In January we published our consultation response, and we will bring forward legislation to implement the policy later this year.

National No Smoking Day

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and, more than that, I thank him for his tireless and enduring campaigning. He has spoken about this issue on many occasions, and we acknowledge and thank him for that.

We have come a long way, but the impact of smoking is still immense, as we have heard. It is also very personal, and we heard from the hon. Member himself, and from other hon. Members, about that personal impact. On that note, I pay tribute to my researcher Gillian, who helped me to prepare for the debate with her usual expertise, but also with even more passion than usual. That is because she lost her father, Tom Barr, suddenly in February 2021 to COPD caused by smoking. In a way, this is a tribute to him and to Gillian, of whom he was rightly proud.

As has been highlighted, this year’s national No Smoking Day theme is “Stopping smoking improves your brain health”, because research shows that quitting smoking reduces the risk of dementia. ASH Scotland’s theme this year is “Quit and win”, which focuses on the benefits for people’s health, wellbeing and personal finances of giving up the habit. The Scottish Government also have two campaigns that run throughout the year: “Take it right outside”, which focuses on communicating the harms of second-hand smoke and the importance of a smoke-free home and car, and “Quit your way”, which addresses the individual needs of people who wish to quit.

Let me turn first to the impact on people and communities. The hon. Member for Harrow East rightly spoke about the frightening consequences of smoking and, in particular, set out the significant link between smoking and dementia, as did the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). According to ASH Scotland, smoking causes 100,000 hospitalisations and 9,000 deaths in the country each year. The Scottish health survey 2021 sets out that smoking is the cause of about one in five deaths and is the primary preventable cause of premature death and ill health.

As we have heard, particularly from the group of north-east MPs, who are well represented here today, a further major challenge is the way in which smoking exacerbates and widens health inequalities. In the most deprived communities in Scotland, one in three people smoke, compared with one in 10 in the least deprived communities. ASH Scotland also highlights that the average smoking household in the country’s lowest income group will spend up to 30% of its income on tobacco in 2023—around nine times more than the 3.35% estimated to be spent by similar households in the highest income groups. It is clear that the huge cost of cigarettes, coupled with the cost of living crisis, is pushing more people into worsening poverty. In that sense, addiction is not just a public health issue but a social justice issue.

There has been some interesting recent research by the British Medical Journal, which found that in Scotland, residents of areas with high outlet density are more likely to smoke and less likely to be ex-smokers, with related evidence that the most deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland have the highest density of retailers. Addressing the density of retailers could be one way to seek to address these inequalities.

I turn to the impact on public services and the economy. As we have heard, smoking remains the biggest cause of cancer and death, and it uses a considerable amount of NHS resources across each of the four nations. The annual cost to NHS Scotland of treating smoking-related diseases is estimated to exceed £300 million, and it could be higher than £500 million each year. Ill health and disability caused by tobacco, alcohol, weight and obesity are estimated to cost the Scottish economy between £5.6 billion and £9.3 billion each and every year.

It is clear that smoking continues to wreak havoc on people’s lives and create a significant drain on our health and social care services. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was quite right to say it is important we acknowledge that progress is being made. We have seen a reduction in the number of people smoking, from 31% down to 17% in 2019. That is still falling, and the pattern is similar across the UK.

We should acknowledge the measures introduced by Governments of different political persuasions in the different parts of the United Kingdom, often at similar points in time—for example, the ban on tobacco advertising in 2002 in Scotland; banning smoking in enclosed public spaces from 2006; raising the age at which tobacco can be purchased from 16 to 18; making prisons smoke-free from November 2018; and banning smoking around hospital buildings in 2020. There are various other measures on top of those as well.

As we have heard, there is a lot more work to do. We need to go further. The target set currently by the Scottish Government is to reduce smoking rates to less than 5% of the adult population by 2034. We are really seeking to create a new generation who have never smoked and do not want to smoke, and to put tobacco use out of sight and out of mind for future generations.

Five years on from the original tobacco action plan, the Scottish Government are due to publish a new one in autumn this year. They are considering a range of additional measures about prohibiting smoking in areas that have so far been untargeted—for example, public playgrounds, outdoor care areas and so on. We should be considering even more, and this debate has highlighted many policy areas that should be considered by Governments at all levels, including those in the Khan review.

We have heard about the possibility of further regulation and increasing funding for tobacco control, as well as suggestions for some sort of windfall tax on tobacco manufacturers. Given the costs borne by public services for a product that is wreaking considerable harm and sold at huge profits by just a handful of tobacco companies, I thought the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made some powerful points in that regard. The hon. Member for Blaydon highlighted various recommendations in the Khan review that are designed to address smoking during pregnancy; again, that requires serious consideration. All Governments should continue to learn from each other about what works best.

The final thing I will touch on is simply getting the message out there that help is available. We all acknowledge that quitting is not easy. Giving up smoking and dealing with the related cravings, triggers and withdrawal symptoms can be incredibly hard, as anyone who has tried can attest. Smoking is extremely physically addictive. The physical feelings that people get from it include improvements in mood, increased concentration, reduced anger and stress and relaxed muscles, but they are all very short term. That means that many people who stop smoking can feel anxious and suffer many withdrawal symptoms—disruption to their routine, triggers, cravings and side effects.

The message to get out there is that support is available. If someone feels able to take the first step, it is not something they have to do themselves. Localised support is available from NHS stop smoking services, GPs and local pharmacists. They are all there to help people and point them in the direction that is right for each individual person. For example, support from NHS Lanarkshire, one of the two health boards in my constituency, includes one-to-one telephone or video calls, local pharmacy support in the form of free stop smoking help, nicotine replacement therapy delivered to people’s homes, personalised quit plans and a helpline. People can search online for further information.

Smoking creates unimaginable pain and suffering for both the smoker and, as we have heard, the families who have to watch their loved ones suffer. Giving up is absolutely worth it, though—people can get their lungs back, that heavy feeling in their chest goes away and they can breathe in the fresh air and feel their energy levels and a clear head returning. Stopping smoking improves physical health and immediately reduces the risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and dementia, as well as improving mental health and wellbeing in as little as six weeks of being smoke-free. That is transformational, and it can be done. If people can be supported to do that, they will benefit, their families will benefit and all of us will benefit, and we will be grateful for that.

Performance-enhancing Drugs and Body Image

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate and for his excellent introduction. He spoke passionately and eloquently, from both his personal and professional experience. It would be difficult for me to add very much insight to what he has already provided, and there was very little I could quibble with in what he had to say. I am grateful to him for highlighting the issue’s significance as a public health issue, and as a growing public health problem at that, not just here but internationally. I fully confess that it is an issue of which I was not properly aware.

As the hon. Member pointed out, growing numbers of people are using IPEDs, including anabolic steroids. For various reasons, it is not clear precisely how many people are doing so, but it is clearly a very significant number. The hon. Member said that it is around 500,000, while others say it is more. A variety of sports have been implicated historically, including rugby union, rugby league, athletics and cycling, as we have heard. Other users are now engaging in this practice simply for reasons of image enhancement, including a growing number of gym users.

Studies suggest that young men in their early 20s are the most likely to start down this path, and increased use appears to be assisted by comparatively easy access, particularly through online sales and postal delivery from abroad. Border Force has previously reported annual seizures of millions of steroid doses.

As we have heard, this usage has significant consequences for people’s health. We have heard about problems with kidneys, liver problems, heart attacks and strokes. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) pointed out, there have been tragic cases where people have died from comparatively low amounts of steroid use. There are behavioural and mental health issues, including mood swings, aggression and eating disorders.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Member mentions aggression. A common side effect of steroids is roid rage, which means that it is not just those who choose to use steroids who are impacted, but everyone around them, too, and that can lead to serious life-ruining consequences all around. Does the hon. Member agree that greater understanding of side effects is an imperative part of tackling the abuse of these drugs?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. One report I read suggested that when engaging with people who are already using steroids, sometimes the most persuasive factor in getting them to reconsider and move away from this conduct comes from speaking to them about the consequences for their mental health rather than the physical consequences. That appears to have more influence when it comes to behaviour. The hon. Member makes an interesting point.

Alone, most steroids are taken in pill form. If needle sharing is involved, there are other risks in terms of HIV and hep C. Use of counterfeits also further complicates risk. Of course, another consequence if they are used in sport is that unfairness is created and sporting integrity is undermined. As has been set out, the drugs are regulated under the Medicines Act 1968 and classified as class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The question rightly posed to us today is: what more can we do? I speak from a position of weakness, but I agree that first and foremost, we all need to improve our knowledge of the issue. Evidence has to be at the heart of the approach, as the hon. Member for Bosworth has said, so how better can we understand the scale, incidence and causation of the problems that have been highlighted and thereby better craft a response?

As the hon. Member highlighted, last August the Health and Social Care Committee reported on the impact of body image on mental and physical health and recommended a national review of the growing use of anabolic steroids as it relates to body image. That seems to me to be an essential first step. That research will then shape our response, which will have to use a public health approach and education to tackle demand and to try to close off access as best we can. That, of course, will involve a cross-departmental approach, which was another important point made by the hon. Member.

On education and campaigning, there are two sides to the coin. First, we need to look at the material and propaganda influencing and driving people to a place where they feel it is necessary or desirable to access IPEDs. That includes media and social media, as hon. Members have said, with the all-prevalent perfect body images in the press, on TV and increasingly on social media and in online advertising. If anyone shows a remote interest in trying to keep fit or even just losing a few pounds, they suddenly find themselves bombarded on Instagram or Facebook or whatever else with relentless images of what has been referred to in the past as the “Love Island” look, which to me seems pretty much unachievable for anyone who cannot spend every waking hour in the gym or unless they use IPEDs.

The Health and Social Care Committee dealt with that point in its report, calling on the Government to work with advertisers to feature a wider variety of body aesthetics and with industry and the Advertising Standards Authority to encourage advertisers and influencers not to doctor their images. The Committee said that

“the Government should introduce legislation that ensures commercial images are labelled with a logo where any part of the body, including its proportions and skin tone, are digitally altered.”

Those seem to be valuable suggestions that are certainly worth considering. The hon. Member for Bosworth pointed out that there has been some progress, but there is further to go.

As well as tackling the images and messages that promote the use of IPEDs, Government also need to raise awareness of the risks and how to minimise harm. Again, various Committee recommendations seem sensible, advocating for a campaign co-ordinated

“through existing steroid user support groups and targeted at areas of highest risk, such as gyms with a high proportion of body builders.”

We need to tackle head on the idea that these things are some sort of equivalent to supplements. They are in a different category altogether. The Committee also heard evidence stressing the importance of education about body image for young people, in terms of both critical thinking and appraising images, as well as self-worth. Again, the Government should strengthen those areas in education settings.

A report by the Scottish Drugs Forum noted the significance of close friends as a source of IPEDs. It suggested that peer education programmes could be an important way of overcoming that, with community members cascading positive health messages. And this is not just about education; mental health strategies need to be revisited as well, and we need to think about how we can support people struggling with self-esteem amid a bombardment of images.

Finally, we also need to consider appropriately targeted harm reduction advice and drugs services. There are many examples of good work out there. Yorkshire and the Humber has a regional steroid and IPED reference group and a workers forum of more than 30 people and with every district represented. In Glasgow, an image and performance enhancing drugs clinic provides testing, needle exchange services, consultation and advice on harm reduction and alternatives. Edinburgh, too, has a steroid clinic based in the harm reduction team of NHS Lothian. It provides advice services, equipment and testing, psychological services, and support to stop with mental and physical assistance. There is good work happening in the different parts of the United Kingdom. We should learn from that, and seek to ensure that more people around the various countries can benefit from it. Those are just a few ideas.

I will close by thanking the hon. Member for Bosworth again for bringing forward this debate. None of us have all the answers; I certainly do not—far from it. He had lots of ideas. He highlighted that there are pros and cons to some of them. Some of them are quite bold or controversial, but they are definitely worth discussing. His central point was that we need to have evidence to make the discussion as fully informed as possible. We should revisit this topic, and ensure that we continue to drive forward as we seek to address what is a growing public health issue.

Automated External Defibrillators: Public Access

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I am very honoured to be a replacement for Mr Thomson— I do not know how able, but I will do my best.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate. I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been championing this cause for a considerable time and therefore is an expert on it, as he showed with his opening speech. I confess that, in contrast, I am comparatively new to the issue. Like many others, I had my interest in it sparked by the lifesaving treatment of Christian Eriksen at this summer’s Euros, to which the hon. Member referred, and by subsequent conversations with constituents. I have been able to start some productive local conversations with the two local authorities that serve my constituents and with the British Heart Foundation. I am keen to learn more, and already have learned quite a lot more in the course of the debate.

In launching a small local campaign to help raise awareness of cardiac arrest and how to respond, and to try to increase access to lifesaving CPR training and defibrillators, we opted to call it “Every Second Counts”. That is not remotely original, but it reflects the fact that, as hon. Members have noted, when it comes to surviving a cardiac arrest, every moment really does matter.

The numbers are stark when it comes to survival rates for the 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that people suffer each year in the UK—just one in 10, as we have heard. However, if we think about that from a different perspective, it means that we have the opportunity here to save hundreds—thousands—of lives if we get the response right. The basic components of a successful strategy seem uncontroversial, as we have already heard. We need to ensure that people can recognise what a cardiac arrest looks like so that they can take appropriate action. We need to ensure that they know to call 999 and can perform CPR. We also need them to use a defibrillator if one is available.

Access to defibrillators is a vital component of the chain of survival. How do we improve accessibility, because currently, as we have heard, only a small percentage of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests receive bystander defibrillation? It is important that there is a greater understanding of when and how to use defibrillators. We must get across the message that they are easy to use so that people do not hesitate for fear of doing it wrong. I look forward to taking part in the training that the hon. Member for Strangford is going to put on for us.

We need to get defibrillators across the country registered on The Circuit so that when we call 999 we can be directed to the nearest accessible defibrillator. We all know that early defibrillation can massively increase someone’s chances of surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but many defibrillators are never used because the emergency services simply do not know about them. The Circuit, an initiative by the British Heart Foundation, could prove an important step forward, and we all have a role in raising awareness in our constituencies.

A lot of good work is being done across the UK. We have heard about that already today. We all need to learn from each other, but we can also learn from good practice and what works by looking at examples from abroad. Denmark seems to be a model of good practice, which seems appropriate given what happened to Christian Eriksen. A training programme, the placement of 17,000 AEDs in the community and the implementation of a registry of where they are has seen impressive results. Survival rates have tripled largely because the rates of bystander CPR have shot up from 19% to 65%.

The Danes also use a smartphone Heartrunner app to alert responders trained in CPR and the use of defibrillators to any nearby cardiac arrest and the nearest publicly accessible defibrillator. Some 16,000 citizens joined that system in its first two months.

Sweden has seen survival rates double in the last 20 years, partly through mass CPR training—something we have heard about today—and SMS Lifesavers, which seems to be along the same lines as the Danish Heartrunner model.

It is not just about the number of accessible defibrillators, but where they are. It is brilliant to have two installed by voluntary organisations in the same street, but ideally we need to be able to target them where they are most needed, and we need to map that out. Some 80% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur at home, so how do we get as many into areas of concentrated housing as possible? Some public buildings will be ideal for that, with many schools situated in the heart of communities, for example, but other large housing estates might not have such buildings, so how do we deal with that? On the other hand—the hon. Member for Strangford touched on this earlier—our more remote areas have low concentrations of people, but possibly longer to wait for an ambulance, so defibrillators could be all the more vital.

Again looking to Denmark and Sweden as an example, I understand that 200,000 people have access to emergency medical deliveries of defibrillators by drone. Studies in Canada have suggested that that could be a lifesaving option for rural areas. But perhaps we should learn to run before we try to fly. NHS Grampian has had some success in reducing response times to remote areas with teams of trained volunteer responders equipped with AEDs and vehicle locator systems.

On another related issue, I was concerned to read that those in the most deprived areas of the country are almost 20% less likely to receive bystander CPR, so we need to try to understand why that is and how we can address that problem. We need to address these issues to ensure the best response, and we would be wise to look at the type of work that has been undertaken by the resuscitation research group at the University of Edinburgh. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that every second counts, and that we do everything we can to save lives.

I thank the hon. Members who supported this debate and express my support for their call to action.

Covid-Secure Borders

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I start by commending the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the shadow Home Secretary, and his colleagues for bringing this important debate to the House. His motion makes some important, very solid points with which we agree. We need clear, simple to understand and proper hotel quarantine restrictions to minimise as far as possible the introduction of new strains. Secondly, measures introduced at the UK border have not worked as we all would have wanted, and the Government need to improve how the scheme is operating. There needs to be transparency on decision making and the data used.

There has to be international co-operation and discussion of how vaccine passports might support the return of safe travel, and there is absolutely a need for a sector-specific support deal. On the suggestion that we move immediately from a full traffic light system to a red and green system, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded. That is something that could be looked at, but we would first need to see the expert advice on that issue, including the view of the JBC.

Before I expand on two or three of those points, let me pay tribute to and thank all the staff—Border Force and others—who are working as hard as possible to try to keep us safe at the border in what are incredibly difficult circumstances. Along with other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, last week I had a chance to visit Heathrow airport, where we spoke to airport and border staff. They are doing their best in difficult circumstances, and we thank them.

Turning to the motion, of course we need strong border measures, which should include clear, simple and robust systems for self-quarantine as required. Almost every country in the world has used border measures to help to control the virus. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that is only one part of a wider and larger strategy for disease control but, nevertheless, it remains a crucial part of the overall effort to combat covid.

The second key element of the Opposition motion deals with the fact that the UK’s border measures have, on several occasions, fallen short, and the covid pandemic has been worse in the UK as a result. That was, for example, true last year when, as countries around the world were tightening restrictions at the border, the UK went from 13 March to June with essentially no additional requirements for restrictions on arrivals beyond what was imposed on the population as a whole. The Home Affairs Committee has reported that the 10 days prior to lockdown were a particularly disastrous period, during which huge numbers arrived in the country bringing huge numbers of cases with them.

Similar mistakes were made earlier this year. When the strong advice was to put a comprehensive health quarantine system in place, that is what the Scottish Government did. The UK Government took the wrong approach—a different approach—and have deservedly been pilloried for their delay in putting India on the red list of countries for which hotel quarantine is required. The consequences are there for all to see, with the Delta strain dominant, increased infectiousness and increased resistance to a single vaccine dose knocking weeks off our recovery.

Linked to those mistakes and, indeed, perhaps a key cause of them, is a lack of transparency about decision-making processes and the data that have driven them. When the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly asked to see the advice that justified the UK lifting measures for travellers 10 days before lockdown last March, what followed was months of obfuscation and stonewalling. Similarly, it has been hard to see the scientific justification for delaying hotel quarantine for arrivals from India—certainly, in terms of published figures, there seems to be absolutely none. In both cases, we are left to conclude that the basis was shaky and, in the latter case, more likely driven by the Prime Minister’s planned visit to India and trade ambitions there, rather than health implications.

The serious consequences of the failure to add India timeously mean that full disclosure and transparency are merited, but we are a long way from seeing that. Indeed, the Minister’s response to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Torfaen illustrated that perfectly. Going forward, further requirements, including quarantine, will continue to have a crucial role. Again, we need full disclosure and transparency about decisions that have been made so that we can understand them, interrogate them and hold Government to account. At the moment, the impression is of constant battles between the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care in which scientific advice and public health are not always the deciding factor.

Turning to the suggestion that we move immediately from what is a full traffic-light system to a red and green system, as I said at the outset, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded of that case, but we are not persuaded yet. Our position simply is that Government should make decisions based on data and expert scientific advice. Those in government must not hesitate to challenge pushback and interrogate recommendations, but decisions must follow the outcome of such discussions, not prejudge them. If the data show, and the advice from the experts is that a red-green system is the right way to go, we are open to that. All that we are saying is that such changes need to go through a proper system of scrutiny and development first.

There clearly have been significant challenges to the use of home quarantine. During our visit to Heathrow, it was clear that border officials were fully stretched checking passenger locator forms and other requirements, even with a comparatively low number of arrivals. The capacity to cope with any increase in traffic must be seriously questioned, and we need to hear much more from the Home Office about how it is going to respond to that challenge.

There are limits to what checks and forms can realistically be completed at the airport. Few phone numbers or addresses have been checked, which creates difficulties for any in-country enforcement. Surely, there must be ways to check phone numbers and addresses, even before someone steps on to a plane to come here. There is no reason why that cannot be looked at away from the border, and anything that can help frontline staff and make the amber list work better must be considered. Challenges in airport mixing have rightly been raised, and were still present when we visited Heathrow last week. Terminal 4, the dedicated terminal for arrivals from red-list countries, is absolutely welcome, but it does not completely fix the problem, because of the related problem of indirect arrivals from red-list countries, which highlights another problem: passengers from red-list countries who have been mixing on indirect flights with passengers from amber and green-list countries. The challenges remain.

As we look to the future, and hopefully to recover, we could, and probably should, have a full debate on the role of so-called vaccine passports and their implications, but their use and requirement for international travel is simply a fact of life. It is important that the Governments of all the UK nations remain involved in discussions with international partners on how they should work, to set standards and to address ethical challenges that arise.

The motion also rightly points to steps that need to be taken to protect the aviation industry and to support its gradual rejuvenation. That is why, for example, the Scottish Government decided to extend the 100% non-domestic rates relief for the aviation sector for yet another year. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has repeatedly made the case for further targeted support from the UK Government in terms of furlough, taxation and direct support, but the response has been underwhelming to say the least.

The UK Government have been weak on restrictions at key points, weak on transparency and still are today, and indeed weak on sector support. It is essential for public health and to protect jobs that they up their game very quickly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

There is a five-minute time limit in place. A few colleagues have withdrawn from the debate, so I will try to keep it at five minutes for as long as possible. Obviously, the clock displays the time count, and for virtual contributions it is on the screen. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.

Covid-19

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP [V])]

I welcome the fact that after a long, hard winter, there are now grounds for cautious optimism. However, there is more to do to make sure that a return to some sort of normality is sustainable and that as many jobs and businesses as possible are supported through to that new normality.

On the first point—sustainability—I repeat my party’s call for the UK Government to take stronger measures at the border. The overwhelming evidence is that as we manage to get domestic transmission under control, it becomes much more important, not less, to stop receiving the virus, including new strains from abroad. While the introduction of supervised quarantine for red list country arrivals was better than nothing, it is fair to say that almost everyone and their dog knows that such a restricted, piecemeal approach does not go far enough and does not make sense for a host of reasons. We also know that almost three in four people across the whole of the UK prefer the comprehensive Scottish Government rules for hotel quarantine to the weaker Westminster approach taken to arrivals in England. I ask the UK Government to listen to the Scottish Government, to public opinion and to the scientific evidence.

On the second issue—protecting jobs and businesses—I join my colleagues in stating that it is imperative that the various economic and social security support schemes are extended again, and the gaps in support comprehensively highlighted by the all-party parliamentary group and campaigners must be filled now by the Chancellor in his Budget.

I will finish by raising with the Paymaster General the specific issues faced by one type of business—kennels and catteries, and other animal care businesses. Many such businesses are struggling to survive, including local operators I have been speaking to in Cumbernauld, who normally have a customer base of over 1,000, but who now have, and will have in the months ahead, next to no business. It is the same for businesses across the UK. Intrinsically linked to the tourism and hospitality industries, they are not being supported as if they were part of that sector—for example, there is no reduction in VAT. Fixing that so that these businesses get the same support as other tourism businesses would be a small move for the Treasury, but a massive help to the businesses.

I hope a Treasury Minister will be willing to speak to me and to business owners about this. It may seem a niche issue now, but it will not some time down the line, when we open up again and can finally take holidays at home and abroad, but find that there is nowhere to put all our newly purchased cats and dogs.

Covid Security at UK Borders

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

If the Government do not learn from mistakes they make during this pandemic, those mistakes will be repeated, with the same terrible consequences. Let us be clear: this Government have made significant mistakes on covid security at the border. I accept that some of those mistakes are easier to see now with hindsight, but others should have been and were apparent at the time. Indeed, the UK approach to borders stood out like a sore thumb for significant parts of last year, compared with the actions taken by even neighbouring countries. It is not just me saying that, because the Home Affairs Committee has said it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has repeatedly pointed out the flaws in the Home Office response over the past year, as one would expect from such a distinguished and knowledgeable home affairs shadow. I pay tribute to her for that work and look forward to maintaining the challenge she posed to the Home Office on this issue and on many, many others.

Of course, the Home Secretary herself has accepted that the Government got it wrong, saying that she argued for border closures last March. That raises questions about why she stayed in post when she was overruled, rather than arguing for essential border closures from outside the Cabinet. Last week, she accepted that there were

“still too many people coming in”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 406.]

to the country. That is a stark admission so far into a pandemic. The new measures announced last week by the Home Secretary just about amount to a step in the right direction, but, as is typical of much of the Government’s response to this crisis, it is not a decisive step; it is a hesitant half-measure, when what we needed was bold action.

The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, has said that the Scottish Government and the SNP believe that

“a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine is required”.

“Comprehensive” is certainly not how we would describe the very limited scheme that the UK Government have drawn up, so we support the Opposition motion. If the Government really want to persuade us that this tentative hotel quarantine policy will genuinely make a difference, Ministers must tell us what estimates they have made of the numbers who will be impacted by these new requirements? How many hotel rooms do they believe will be required? On the other hand, how many thousands of people will continue simply to pass straight through the airports, and out on to public transport and into our towns and cities?

Put simply, we support a more comprehensive scheme because that is what the evidence points to. Professor John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told the Home Affairs Committee:

“The places that have had very effective quarantine measures do not ask people to quarantine in their homes.”

So why is the UK not learning more quickly from international best practice? Instead, the UK has offered a half-baked measure that does not bring comfort to the disastrously impacted aviation industry; nor is it decisive enough to appear capable of making any real difference to covid in this country. The Government have tried to operate a timid middle-way compromise, and instead have helped neither public health nor industry. In relation to the South African strain, the stable door was closed half-heartedly, and only after the horse had well and truly bolted.

Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have expressed concerns that the measure does not go far enough. Although public health measures can take the devolved Governments so far, with border powers and passenger data in the hands of the Home Office, co-operation is required. The preference would be to have strong and consistent quarantine rules across the UK, so I ask Ministers and the Home Secretary to listen and engage very carefully; as and when the devolved Governments seek to go further than the half-baked UK measures, I hope that they will co-operate and provide support.

We need a more comprehensive scheme to protect from covid arrivals at the border. At the same time, we need a bespoke and comprehensive package of support for the aviation industry. From the outset of the pandemic, it was clear that one of the sectors that would be most impacted was aviation. The UK Government clearly felt the same and promised sector-specific support, but the one Government who jumped into instant action to support the sector were the Scottish Government, who provided 100% rates relief for a full year, which has now been extended by at least three months, with the aim of extending it longer. It took the UK Government six months to do anything similar.

With the vast majority of flights grounded, the situation facing the sector is still absolutely dire. Tens of thousands of jobs have gone in the sector, and many that remain have been forced to accept lower terms and conditions. I ask the Government again to support the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to outlaw that practice. The sad truth is that, without further support, tens of thousands more jobs will go, so the Chancellor must deliver urgent help, including: action on furlough extension; reversing the decision on tax-free shopping; extending rates relief; and much, much more.

Finally, it is important to emphasise that all these issues will be of increasing importance in the months ahead. As we look forward, with some guarded optimism, to getting cases back under control and as vaccines are rolled out, declining domestic transmission means that preventing transmission from international arrivals becomes more important, not less—if we really are serious about suppressing this virus. I dearly hope that the Government are serious about that. If so, they should support this motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be a three-minute limit on all contributions from now on, apart from the Front-Bench contributions at the end of the debate.

Covid-19

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This is all about ensuring that we are as well prepared as possible for tackling this virus and that the total focus of the new National Institute for Health Protection is on the prevention of infectious diseases. I have set that out very clearly, as I did in my speech. Sometimes we have to make changes to ensure that our systems are working as effectively as possible, and, critically, we had to do so to bring together the different parts of the infection response that had ended up in different places and needed to be brought under single leadership.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

What work is ongoing to ensure that all the PPE needed by the NHS this winter is procured in good time, and will details of all previous PPE contracts be published immediately in order to address serious concerns about the appropriateness of some of the earlier deals?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely; we are working very hard to ensure not only that we have PPE for now and for winter, and that we rebuild the stockpile that we used during the peak of the pandemic, but that as much as possible of the PPE available and used in this country is made in this country, so that we are less reliant on international contracts and the international flow of PPE, which obviously became difficult at the height of the crisis. We are one United Kingdom in ensuring that we have the provision of PPE for now and in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

T5. The Government have finally completed their consultation on mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. When can we finally expect to see that eminently sensible policy implemented?

[Jo Churchill]

That was part of the prevention Green Paper. We have the consultation responses, which we will assess and come forward with proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Seema Kennedy]

Let me begin by paying tribute to my constituent Paula Holmes, who made me aware of DIPG, and to all the work she has done in memory of her daughter Katy, one of the 40 children who died from it. We rely on researchers to submit high-quality research proposals in this difficult area, and the National Institute for Health Research has put out a highlight notice asking for research teams. We stand ready to translate any new discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments and diagnostics for patients, and I am happy to keep the House updated.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

14. What his policy is on the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)]

We have announced our intention to consult on the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. We are fully committed to this and we will be launching the consultation as soon as possible.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but the Government said in January that the consultation would happen soon. As it was originally announced in October, people are becoming frustrated. Can she say that this will happen before the summer? Can she confirm that it will be about how we go about mandatory fortification, rather than about whether we should do it?

[Seema Kennedy]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, and I know that Members have been waiting for this. I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this will happen. I am going to be making it happen before the summer, and I will return to the House to update it.