Category: Speeches

Luke Pollard – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see so many parliamentary petitions attached to this debate, showing the true breadth of concern about the health of these essential pollinators. I am grateful to all the petitioners, who share my passion for bees. I hope that the debate does their concerns justice.

Before we start, I declare an interest: my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall, and I am a patron of Pollenize, a fantastic community interest company in Plymouth that champions pollinator conservation. I also thank Buglife, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Green Alliance and the all-party parliamentary groups on bees and pollinators and on the environment for their help in my preparation for the debate.

Although my remarks today will focus on bees, we should remember that moths, butterflies, wasps and beetles are also pollinators, but as I said, I will confine my remarks to bees. I bloody love bees. They might be small creatures, but a lot rests on them. Today, up to three quarters of crops globally are pollinated by bees. The decline in bee populations has led to concerns about food security as well as the impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, but just last Monday the Government issued yet another so-called emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, for the treatment of sugar beet seed for the remainder of this year. This is the third time that the Government have granted emergency permissions for that bee-killing pesticide to be used.

Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, ruled that the use of bee-killing pesticides was not acceptable, even under emergency exemptions to protect sugar beet crops, which he mentioned. France has this year decided not to grant the exemption, but the UK Government have. Does he share my concern that the Government may be allowing our environmental standards to slip?

Luke Pollard

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention on a point that I will come to. We are in the middle of a climate and nature emergency; we need all our policies, not just some of them, to reflect that, and authorising the use of bee-killing pesticides is not consistent with the declaration that this House has agreed to.

In this debate, I want to do three things. First, I will argue that the decision to authorise bee-killing pesticides for 2023 was wrong and should be reversed. Bee-killing pesticides are environmental vandalism. Secondly, I want to back our British farmers, so I challenge the Government and industry to do more to help sugar beet farmers, some of whom face financial losses and real difficulties because of an aphid-spread disease, the beet yellows virus. Thirdly, I propose again that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides be subject to a parliamentary vote, rather than being quietly snuck out by Ministers.

I do not believe that there has been an emergency three years in a row; this is a plan to allow bee-killing pesticides to be used, with authorisations given annually. I sense some déjà vu here, because this time last year, the Government authorised the use of bee-killing pesticides for 2022. I held a parliamentary debate on bee-killing pesticides in this very room a year ago and was told by the Minister at the time that the authorisation was “temporary” and “exceptional”, but here we are again. It is a new year, but the same bee-killing pesticides have been greenlighted by the Conservatives.

It is four years since this became the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate and nature emergency. I want all of us, regardless of party, to focus on nature recovery, rather than on having to prevent Ministers from issuing death warrants for bees and other pollinators. One third of the UK bee population has disappeared in the last decade, and since 1900 the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Habitat loss, land-use changes and other human factors are partly to blame, but so is the widespread use of neonicotinoids in agriculture and across food production. We know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs authorisation of neonics will accelerate that decline.

Thiamethoxam, or TMX, has been found to reduce colony health by harming worker-bee locomotion and potentially altering the division of labour if bees move outside or remain outdoors. It can cause hyperactivity in bees and affect their ability to fly. It is not just killing bees; it is depriving bees of the ability to function. One teaspoon is powerful enough to kill 1.25 billion honey bees, according to Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, who is also an expert book writer on the subject of bees. I encourage colleagues to look him up in the Library. Indeed, the former Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), told the Commons in December 2021 that there is a

“growing weight of scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinators.”

Furthermore, the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has said, “The evidence points in one direction—we must ban neonicotinoids”. It is rare that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do here, and I imagine most colleagues in the Chamber do as well. When we left the EU, the Government promised to follow the science.

Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

We should protect our wildlife wherever we possibly can, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to the Minister on the science behind the derogation, given that East Anglia and my constituency of North Norfolk have a large and growing population farming sugar beet. We need to bring glyphosate into the argument. That is another product that we must look to ban, particularly because we know it has harmful effects for humans—it is carcinogenic—and is poor for our biodiversity. The EU is banning glyphosate later this year. What does the hon. Gentleman think about bringing the ban forward from 2025? I certainly want to hear the Minister’s response to that question. We must move to a far more natural solution than glyphosate, which is extremely harmful.

Luke Pollard

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to the science and the process for approval based on scientific decisions in a moment, so I hope he will hold his horses on that point. He makes a strong point on glyphosate. Last year, I held a roundtable with environmental charities, farming representatives and scientists, including representatives of Cancer Research UK, to consider the impact not only of neonicotinoids, but of glyphosate. There are real concerns here, and if we are to make progress in achieving a more nature-based form of agriculture relying on fewer chemicals and pesticides, we need to consider the impact of these chemicals not only on nature, but on human health.

The issue is not only food production in the UK. Now that we have signed trade deals with countries that use neonicotinoids, glyphosate and other chemicals on a greater, more industrial scale in their food production, and we allow that food to be imported to the UK, we are seeing those chemicals in the UK food chain, and we might see even more of them in future, even though we might be taking positive steps to address them. That is an important issue, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as he does every year on this topic. I hope he does not have to do so next year. We are focused on agricultural use today, but there is an issue with the use of glyphosate in cities. Does he agree that we ought to create pollinator corridors in our cities and prevent the use of pesticides, so we do not damage the health of our pollinators, and that councils need to be supported to go down that route?

Luke Pollard

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. Bee corridors and pollinator corridors offer an incredible opportunity to green many of our urban environments, and provide habitats not only for bees, but for other insects. Insect health might not be the sexiest of topics, but it is essential if we are to reverse climate decline and biodiversity loss.

There are superb examples across the south-west—in Bristol and in Plymouth—of bee corridors. I encourage everyone to support their local council in establishing bee corridors, especially at the point in the year when bee corridors do not look their best and plants start to brown; that is precisely when the biodiversity boost is greatest. How can we explain that to residents?

Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has referred to the benefits of pollinator corridors, but in Torbay we have the wild flower garden, which used to be very formal planting right on the seafront. The wild flower garden was extremely popular with tourists and visitors.

Luke Pollard

It is a great loss to Government that the hon. Gentleman is no longer a Minister, but a great benefit to these debates that we have double the west country Members from Devon speaking on such matters. Wild flower meadows, however we brand them, are a really important part of restoring ecosystems. They demonstrate that the interventions needed to support biodiversity recovery are not always large or expensive. They can be in every single community where there is a patch of ground that can be planted with wild flowers, and are a good way of signalling intent, especially as regards the recovery of pollinators.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Brighton also has lots of lovely bee-friendly verges and so forth. Are we not just asking the Government to implement their own approach? Yesterday in their environmental improvement plan, they said that they wanted to put nature friendliness at the heart of all their policies. How is that coherent with the decision taken a few days ago? If the Government want to be consistent, they need to look again at the decision on bee-killing pesticides.

Luke Pollard

That is exactly right. If we are to have a proper nature-based recovery, and if the Government are to achieve their ambitions as set out in not only the Environment Act 2021 but the associated piece of legislation that this House has passed, we need them to follow their own procedures, and I do not think that they have in relation to the authorisation. I will explain why.

When we left the European Union, the Government promised to follow the science on bee-killing pesticides. How is that going? On 6 September 2021, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury, then a DEFRA Minister, told the Commons:

“Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on expert assessment by the Health and Safety Executive.”

Another DEFRA Minister, Lord Goldsmith, gave the same commitment, word for word, in the Lords that month. That surely means that bee-killing pesticides will be used only when the science shows that it is safe to do so. Right? Wrong.

The Government’s own expert committee on pesticides concluded on 30 January this year, in a report that can be found on the Government’s website, that the requirements for an emergency authorisation of bee-killing pesticides had not been met. It stated:

“On the basis of the evidence presented, the Committee agreed it supports the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemical Regulation Division’s assessment that it is unable to support an emergency authorisation, as potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

How can the decision have been made through expert assessment—on the science—as Ministers claim, if those very same experts say no to bee-killing pesticides? The decision to authorise bee-killing pesticide use is not supported by the science, the politics or the public, so why are Ministers allowing bee-killing pesticides to be used again this year?

If Ministers are serious about neonic use being temporary and exceptional, I want the Government to provide more support for sugar beet farmers, so that they can invest in other reasonable control measures, such as the greater use of integrated pest management. I back our British farmers, and I know my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will say something similar. They have had enormous upheaval over the past few years. The withdrawal from the European Union, the change in subsidy regimes, and the fact that it is now harder to export have hit our farmers hard, so we need to find support for them. While critiquing the Government’s authorisation of bee-killing pesticides, I want to lend my support to those beet farmers, who, I recognise, face financial hardship if there is an aphid-spread infection in their crops.

How is best practice on crop hygiene, establishment and monitoring being shared with beet farmers? What investment are the Government making in the development of pest-resistant varieties of sugar beet and other crops? Why did Ministers previously say that the use of bee-killing pesticides would be temporary as new crop varieties would be coming up? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage industry to pay its fair share of the cost of transitioning away from neonic use? Sugar is big business and it is a high-value crop. We have heard before of funds designed to help farmers affected by aphid crop loss, so why grant authorisation again now if there are resources available for the farmers who are suffering from it?

The public will find it hard to believe that this granulated money-making machine is unable to give the sugar beet farmers that it relies on a fairer deal, so as to help them with crop failures, and so that they can develop a robust system of integrated pest management. It is welcome, and perhaps slightly curious, that although DEFRA last week gave a green light to the use of bee-killing pesticides, it simultaneously announced a new subsidy for farmers—the sustainable farming incentive—to encourage them not to use bee-killing pesticides. There is an easier way of preventing the use of bee-killing pesticides: instead of paying farmers not to use them, we could ban them, as Ministers promised to do, as we should be doing, and as other nations are doing.

I think we have stumbled on a new political truth: as long as the Conservatives are in power, whatever the science and their approval process says, they will approve the use of bee-killing pesticides. I challenge the Minister to prove me wrong on that. I did so last year in this very Chamber, and here we are again; bee-killing pesticides have again been authorised for use. More bees will die, and I predict we will be here again in 2024 unless Ministers have a change of heart. Each and every year until we get rid of that political truth, more bees will die. This is not temporary or exceptional; it is now a firmly established annual authorisation of bee-killing pesticides. This is my challenge to Ministers: prove me wrong by not authorising them next year.

Ministers need to provide more evidence of the impacts to inform the science. The reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Government’s own pesticides committee—the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides— highlight a number of science holes in the evidence that they require in order to understand the impact of this authorisation on bees. Will the Minister respond to that?

Will the Minister report how much of the sustainable farming incentive has been used to lower the use of neonicotinoids? Will he ensure that there is not only catchment area science for any use of neonicotinoids, but field-edge studies for every field they are used in? At the moment, the evidence relates to selected fields and catchment areas, which are often too large. Will he ensure that there are catchment and field-edge water studies for every field that neonics are used in? Will he ensure that the cost of science is billed directly to any farmer using Cruiser SB, so that the taxpayer does not lose out?

The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides said that it would be beneficial to have an assessment of the quantity of active substances deployed in the environment as part of the suite of information used to determine whether the benefits of insecticide use outweigh the environmental risks. Will the Minister agree to do that?

Margaret Ferrier

The economic value of pollination to UK crop production is approximately £500 million a year. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the use of these toxic pesticides is short-sighted, particularly as bee numbers rapidly decline?

Luke Pollard

The use of bee-killing pesticides is short-sighted. It is designed to be a quick fix to help farmers who are in a real pickle. I do not doubt the seriousness of the problem, but the longer bee-killing pesticides are authorised annually, the easier it will be to authorise them annually for evermore, and the easier it will be to extend their use to other crops, because the precedent has been set. That is why this House must be firm that bee-killing pesticides should not be used and should be banned.

I would also like the Minister to look at the datasets available for the monitoring of the use of Cruiser SB. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides highlighted that it can see evidence and data only from selected months, not for the whole year. Will he commit to providing data for the whole year to the experts scrutinising this policy? Will he update the House on the development of alternative resistant varieties of crops before any future authorisations are made?

Will the Minister publish in written form whether the Conservative party has received any donations from sugar companies that want to use Cruiser SB? I do not believe the accusation sometimes levelled at Ministers that there is a link between this decision and donations, but the accusation is made in debate on the subject, and the matter would benefit from the full glare of public scrutiny.

I do not want bee-killing pesticides to be used. I do not think they carry public support or confidence, and I want the Minister to explain why he has overruled the scientific bodies that the Government previously relied on for the rigour and relevance of their evidence on the use of bee-killing pesticides. The gap between green rhetoric and green delivery is now a gaping chasm when it comes to bee health.

My final ask is for a parliamentary vote on the use of bee-killing pesticides. I believe the Government do not have the public support for bee-killing pesticides. The majority of beekeepers and farmers, and all MPs, want greater scrutiny of that decision. My proposal to the Minister is that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides should be subject to a parliamentary vote, in which MPs should have the genuine opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of using neonicotinoids. If the Government want to continue the use of neonicotinoids—I believe that Ministers have now set out an automatic annual approval process—we need to make it politically impossible for that to happen without Parliament approving it.

Last year, I warned Ministers that, just as decisions to approve bee-killing pesticides are annual, this debate will also be annual. This is now the annual bee debate; it might not always be called by me but, as long we have Ministers in power who believe that bee-killing pesticides have a place in agriculture, it must be part of the annual political calendar, and it must be a day of shame for Ministers who authorise bee-killing pesticides.

MPs from all parties have received correspondence from constituents, asking them to speak in this debate. Lots of colleagues in all parties wanted to speak but are unable to be here. The message about saving bees is cross-party, and it needs to be one that the Government hear loud and clear.

If we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency, we need more than words—we need action. We need an annual moment of action: a vote to determine whether bee-killing pesticides can and should be used. If we do not have that, it will make securing a net zero, nature-positive future so much harder. Bee health is non-negotiable; our planet depends on it. We must ban the use of bee- killing pesticides.

06/02/2023
Keir Starmer – 2023 Comments on the Growth and Skills Levy

The comments made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 February 2023.

The apprentices I met at Airbus this morning are inspiring and ambitious.

My Labour government will harness the next generation’s talent, and support business to grow.

We’ll replace the Apprenticeship Levy with a Growth and Skills Levy, to give businesses flexibility to invest in the skills they need and deliver growth for Britain.

06/02/2023
Keir Starmer – 2023 Comments on Liz Truss’s Comeback to Politics

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 February 2023.

My heart sinks when I hear more from Liz Truss. She’s done more than enough damage to our economy. And, frankly, when the whole country wants to move forward, we’ve got a cost of living crisis, we’ve got people really worried about being able to pay their bills, they’re looking for a government to take them forward, and all we’ve got is failed prime ministers arguing about who was the biggest failure. That’s the last thing the country needs just right at the moment.

06/02/2023
Will Quince – 2023 Statement on the Transfer of NHS Digital into NHS England

The statement made by Will Quince, the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) has made the following written statement:

Today, NHS Digital legally becomes part of NHS England, to create a single, central authority responsible for all elements of digital technology, data and transformation for the NHS.

Laura Wade-Gery was commissioned by the Government to lead an independent review of how we can ensure digital technology and the effective use of data is at the heart of transforming the NHS.

Her report “Putting data, digital and tech at the heart of transforming the NHS”, published in November 2021, recommended merging the functions of NHS Digital into NHS England, to provide a single statutory body for data, digital and technology to provide the right leadership and support to integrated care systems.

NHS Digital, since its creation as the Health and Social Care Information Centre, has been a powerful force for change in the NHS and guardian of its key data IT and data systems. These will be transferring to NHS England, together with its expert staff.

All the protections of people’s data which existed in NHS Digital will apply in NHS England. Rigorous internal controls will continue to ensure that data is used and shared safely, securely and appropriately to deliver high-quality care, understand and protect the health of the population, effectively plan and improve services, and research and develop innovative treatments, vaccines and diagnostics.

This is an important step in bringing together in a single place, the essential systems and programmes to digitally transform the NHS, and to harness the full potential of data. This will enable health and social care services to use digital and data more effectively to deliver improved patient outcomes and address the key challenges we face.

06/02/2023
Kevin Hollinrake – 2023 Statement on Register of Overseas Entities

The statement made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

The Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility, my noble Friend Lord Callanan, has today made the following statement:

The register of overseas entities is a vital new information tool for our law enforcement agencies and is part of the Government’s comprehensive and ongoing programme to tackle and prevent economic crime and illicit finance.

The Government legislated for it within weeks of the invasion of Ukraine and, with the assistance of Parliament, expedited the regulations needed to launch the register, which opened on 1 August 2022.

Yesterday marked the end of the six-month period for overseas companies and other legal entities in scope to register. By 5 pm yesterday, about 19,665 overseas entities were successfully registered and there were approximately 5,054 pending registrations that were submitted before the deadline. As such, the UK now has a valuable new database for law enforcement and others to access.

Throughout this period Companies House has been working closely with the three UK land registries to ensure that overseas entities are aware of and comply with the new requirements. Companies House sent 57,000 notice letters to all entities in scope in August, including duplicate letters to those that had multiple contact addresses recorded at the land registries. In October 2022, HM Land Registry issued a notice letter to the entities registered in England and Wales to alert them that a restriction notice had been placed on their land. In early January 2023, Companies House issued further reminders to those that had not yet registered.

Companies House has endeavoured to ensure that it has the best possible information about those that have not yet complied, matching registrations against data from the land registries. While some entities may have changed their name, not updated the land registry records or may no longer exist, Companies House continues to research and to work with company registries in those jurisdictions with the highest number of in-scope entities to determine the status of all unregistered entities.

An estimated 7,000 overseas entities have not yet complied with the provisions of the register. From today, those entities will find that they cannot freely lease, charge or dispose of their land. This is a significant and effective sanction for non-compliance. Data about unregistered entities may also provide valuable information for law enforcement.

Companies House is now assessing and preparing cases for additional enforcement action. These cases will be prioritised using an intelligence-led approach and Companies House will work with those entities making a genuine attempt to comply. Warning letters will shortly be issued to all unregistered overseas entities. Those wilfully failing to comply may find themselves subject to financial penalties or criminal prosecution.

The Government are also announcing that, through an investment of up to £20 million of allocated spending on economic crime, new anti-money laundering intelligence teams will be created to tackle the misuse of UK companies, corporate entities and property. Intelligence analysts and data scientists will be recruited over the coming months. They will play a key role in supporting the prevention, detection and disruption of money laundering, terrorist financing and kleptocracy through identifying, analysing and disseminating intelligence about high-level threat actors and enablers of those activities, to a wide variety of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. There will be a strong focus on networks controlled from overseas, for example those operating from former Soviet states. The new functions will be based within Companies House and the Insolvency Service, and will work closely with the National Economic Crime Centre and their private sector partners. The teams will use and support the existing powers of both agencies and new powers being introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.

06/02/2023
Rishi Sunak – 2023 Comments on Supporting Turkey Following Earthquake

The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on Twitter on 6 February 2023.

My thoughts are with the people of Türkiye and Syria this morning, particularly with those first responders working so valiantly to save those trapped by the earthquake.

The UK stands ready to help in whatever way we can.

06/02/2023
James Cleverly – 2023 Comments on Supporting Turkey Following Earthquake

The comments made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on Twitter on 6 February 2023.

The UK is sending immediate support to Türkiye including a team of 76 search & rescue specialists, equipment and rescue dogs.

In Syria, the UK-funded White Helmets have mobilised their resources to respond.

We stand ready to provide further support as needed.

06/02/2023
Mark Harper – 2023 Speech to the Airport Operators Association Conference

The speech made by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 31 January 2023.

Introduction

It’s a pleasure to be here, delivering my first aviation speech since becoming Transport Secretary.

You could be forgiven over the last year for thinking you perhaps have heard ministers using that line before. It’s been frustrating, I know, for an industry eager to get on with the business of growth…especially after the devastating impact of of the Covid pandemic over the last few years.

So let me start by thanking all of you, not just for the hard work airports continued to do amidst last year’s political and economic turbulence, and that’s turbulence which I’m very pleased that this government – led by this Prime Minister – has ended, but also for the collaboration I’ve seen in the face of ongoing strike action at our borders. And I know you’ve heard earlier from Phil Douglas, the Director General of Border Force. And my department and Border Force have been working very closely with airports to make sure we have resourcing available and we minimise the disruption to the travelling public from that industrial action.

I would also like to acknowledge the recent unfortunate news about the collapse of Flybe and our thoughts are obviously with those affected. We’re working in the department with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to help the passengers affected to access alternative travel arrangements, and pointing staff to the support available from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

But I was also very pleased by the sector’s quick response not only with Ryanair, British Airways and EasyJet, stepping in with special fares for those passengers disrupted, but also the industry’s announcements around fast tracking recruitment processes, for the staff who sadly lost their jobs. All are actually welcome signs of a growing resilience within the sector and you’re focused on ensuring that you can retain and attract the skills and talent necessary for this industry to continue growing.

It’s been 6 years since I was last in government. When I was last in government, aviation’s challenge wasn’t about whether it would grow….it was about by how much….and about whether the industry could keep pace with the rising demand. Pre-pandemic, we had the largest aviation sector in Europe with air transport and aerospace worth £22 billion to our national economy, providing nearly a quarter of a million jobs. Passenger numbers at UK airports had grown by over a third since 2009 and the eve of the pandemic saw the highest number ever.

Recovery

That conversation, however, quickly changed. And the last few years have been the toughest in this industry’s 100-year history. Where UK airports saw a 99% drop in passenger numbers at the height of the pandemic and globally, the sector faced a fall in passenger revenue of over £250 billion in 2021.

Some of you may know that as a backbencher I watched that unfold. I led a group of MPs who wanted a balanced approach to COVID-19 restrictions. Outside of government, I felt one of the jobs of MPs was to hold the government to account, and ask tough questions about policy to make sure we made the right decisions. We did obviously have a duty to protect public health, but we also had a duty to business and workers. And the Prime Minister, while he was Chancellor, obviously put in a significant package of support for the economy.

Every restriction introduced also needed a proper exit plan, so that we could safeguard both lives and livelihoods. And that was I think the right approach…and we put something like £8 billion into the aviation sector…and we moved further and faster than any other nation in re-opening our economy and borders as soon as it was safe to do so.

Since then, and thanks to many in this room, we’ve managed to make sure that aviation, arguably the sector hardest hit by the pandemic, is showing robust signs of recovery. I know for example that Gatwick and Luton both will submit applications for modernisation and expansion programmes. Investments which represent a vote of confidence in aviation’s future. If approved, are set to generate significant benefits for passengers..

We’re also seeing consistently busier airports and fuller flights, with passenger levels now at 85% of pre-pandemic levels. And where the industry struggled to meet this increased demand last year, the government stepped in, working with you to rebuild resilience.

For example, our passenger charter gave the public confidence to travel. We accelerated the vetting process to speed up staff recruitment. But that’s not all. Today (31 January 2023), I can confirm that slots rules will return to normal this summer. But we’re maintaining the safety net introduced during COVID-19 and airlines can hand back 5% of slots to help minimise last minute cancellations.

And I know some of you are trialling next generation security, so that this new technology will better detect prohibited items, allowing passengers to pass through security more swiftly. Just some of the measures that will not only support the sector’s recovery, but help us turn recovery into renewal.

Aviation Council

What renewal looks like is the remit of the Aviation Council, which I will be launching tomorrow. The council brings the full force of industry and government to bear on 10 key issues. Setting the industry on course for long term success, ensuring aviation turns its back on an industrial model no longer fit for purpose and moves towards a more sustainable one, including modern infrastructure, cleaner energy and an increasingly diverse pool of skills and talent.

So let me take each of those in turn.

Modernisation

On modernisation pre-pandemic, thousands of aircraft navigated a complex network of routes to operate safely in our airspace. Mapped in the 1950s, this network has struggled to deal with the surge in growth of modern air travel. Causing delays for passengers as planes circle airports waiting to land. It affects local communities which suffer from excess noise and pollution and ultimately, it increases costs for the industry.

The CAA, last week, launched a refreshed version of its Aviation Modernisation Strategy, to strengthen and upgrade our invisible infrastructure in the skies.

Modernisation will mean quicker and quieter flights, more choice and value for passengers, and futureproofing our airspace to allow safe access for drones and even spacecraft. Something I didn’t realise I had responsibility for before I started in this job, but having had the chance to authorise Spaceport Cornwall I realised that’s also under my responsibilities. That plan is wholeheartedly backed by the government and we’ve provided £9.2 million in funding to support airports throughout this change.

Now I realise some in this room will be frustrated at the speed of progress. And while it’s right that any modernisation aligns with our world leading safety, security and environmental standards, the aviation minister will continue working closely with the CAA and airports involved to drive this forward.

Decarbonisation

A more efficient and cleaner airspace brings me onto arguably this industry’s greatest challenge – decarbonisation. At current rates, aviation will become one of largest carbon emitting sectors by 2050. I don’t support the view that aviation must decline to meet our climate goals. But it must now earn the right to grow by weaning itself off fossil fuels. It’s why we’ve developed the Jet Zero Strategy, which set a 2050 net zero target for the sector.

An ambitious, yes, but the early signs are encouraging, particularly around the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). Take Virgin Atlantic, who this year, thanks to government funding, will conduct the first ever net zero transatlantic flight. Its Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines will be powered by cooking oils that otherwise would have gone to waste. It will be a remarkable achievement, demonstrating UK leadership in an area that could support over 5,000 jobs by 2035.

Fuels are just one part of decarbonising the industry. Airports are also playing a crucial role, with many of you already setting ambitious net zero targets. We’ll soon publish our call for evidence on a 2040 target for net zero airport operations something David Silk will expand on when he speaks to you later today.

Skills and talent

Finally, let me turn to skills and talent. I recognise that the pandemic saw swathes of the workforce face disruption and the immediate priority is to retain that talent. Already, the aviation skills recruitment platform has helped over 1,500 people find jobs and training. But we cannot talk about building a sector fit for the future if our approach to recruiting talent remains stuck in the past.

When I was growing up back where I came from in a working-class household in Swindon, a career in aviation was never suggested as an option for people from my background. And even today, too many people still feel parts of the industry are not for them. But I was talking this morning actually about a fantastic initiative about getting more apprentices involved. And one of the team I was speaking to had actually been to a school in my constituency, where they’ve had people becoming degree apprentices working in the aerospace sector in Gloucestershire. Actually, when you talk to those young people and you listen to what they’ve learnt about the sector, they are enthused, excited about joining what is an exciting sector focused on the future, with all the opportunities in front of them.

But there are too many people who think the industry is not for them. Look at professional pilots – only 6% are women. It can’t be right that we discount half the population, half of the skills and talent available for the sector. Training providers are largely concentrated in the south-east and high training costs put off those from poorer backgrounds. In fact I heard recently from some youngsters who were very keen to join the industry and become pilots, but had no idea how they would make the finances work from the backgrounds from which they came. Many are unaware of the range of careers offered by the industry, including corporate roles, data analysis, engineering and IT.

And ultimately, it’s the industry that will lose out, unable to meet the challenges ahead with a workforce lacking in diversity of thought and experience. Through our Generation Aviation programme, we’re starting to put this right. Our new cohort of Aviation Ambassadors, representing the brightest and best of the industry, will go into schools and local communities to share their experiences and try and enthuse more people to want to join this fantastic industry.

And tomorrow, I’ll announce the winners of the £700,000 Reach for the Sky Challenge Fund. Each winning project will open aviation up to the breadth of talent across the country, from engineering and flying lessons aimed at those from poorer backgrounds, to increasing accessibility for people with disabilities. It’s vital we send a clear message that aviation is for everyone.

Conclusion

I started by talking about the pace of change over the past 6 years. The conversation moving from seemingly limitless growth, then to survival and over the past year, to recovery. Now we’re able to start a more optimistic, conversation about the future. About an industry no longer constrained by outdated practices, but modernising its infrastructure and operations. No longer the poster child for environmental decline, but committed to a future of sustainable flight and attracting talent from every background.

These are just some of the areas where aviation has a golden opportunity to move from recovery to renewal and I look forward to working with all of you to make that happen.

Thank you.

06/02/2023
Neil O’Brien – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

The speech made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I am extremely sorry to hear about Nathan and about Stephen and Gill and, indeed, about the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). I would very much welcome the meeting that my hon. Friend described with her constituents, and we will set that up.

We recognise, though it is hard to understand, the devastation caused to families by the sudden cardiac death of a young person. Sudden cardiac death is an unexpected and sudden death that is thought to be caused by a heart condition.

The implementation of genomic laboratory hubs across England provides an opportunity to explore the systematic introduction of post-mortem genetic testing for SCD. Seven NHS genomic medicine service alliances play an important role in the support of genomic medicine. Those NHS GMS alliances are supporting several transformation projects, including a national project with the NHS inherited cardiac conditions services, the British Heart Foundation and the country’s coroners.

The project will test the DNA of people who died suddenly and unexpectedly at a young age from a cardiac arrest, and their surviving family can also be offered genetic testing to see if they carry the same gene changes. In addition, a pilot project based in the NHS South East Genomic Medicine Service Alliance is aimed at people who have had an unexpected cardiac arrest and survived. They will be offered a genomic test to enable access to treatment, and further genomic testing will be offered to identify immediate family members at risk if a gene change associated with a heart condition is found.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe mentioned, screening programmes in England are set up on the advice of the UK National Screening Committee. These are not political decisions; they are decisions based on the best currently available evidence, and they determine whether the introduction of a screening programme would offer more good than harm. As my hon. Friend said, in 2019 the National Screening Committee reviewed the evidence to provide general screening, and concluded at that time that there was not enough evidence to support the introduction of a national screening programme.

Research showed that the current tests were not accurate enough to use in young people without symptoms, because incorrect test results can cause harm by giving false reassurance to individuals with the condition who may have been missed by the screening test, while individuals without the condition may receive a false positive test result that could lead to unnecessary treatments. The review found that most studies for SCD were in professional athletes, whose hearts of course have different characteristics from those of the general population. Tests can work in different ways in different groups of people. That is why it is very important that research is gathered in a general population setting, as to base it on athletes would not provide a good indication of what would happen if we tested all young people under the age of 39.

The UK NSC was due to review SCD in 2022-23, as my hon. Friend mentioned, but has been unable to do so for a variety of reasons to do with covid and competing priorities. I am unable to confirm this evening when the regular review of SCD will take place, but I am assured that it will take place as soon as constraints allow. I will write to my hon. Friend setting out more details very shortly, because I know how urgent it is to understand when that will happen.

In 2022, the NSC’s remit was expanded to set up a research sub-group to keep abreast of ongoing research related to screening, and to identify research requirements and advice on mechanisms to address them. The committee has encouraged stakeholders to submit any peer-reviewed evidence it may have on incidence for review by the NSC via its early update process, but so far it has not received anything. My hon. Friend asked a series of detailed questions and made a series of very helpful suggestions about how we change the process. The NSC will doubtless have heard the issues that she has raised in this House, but I also undertake to raise directly with the NSC all her very constructive points.

The consensus at present has been to focus on rapid identification of sudden cardiac death and automated external defibrillator use in people who suffer a cardiac arrest, in line with the NHS long-term plan. The Government continue to encourage communities and organisations across England to consider purchasing a defibrillator as part of their first aid equipment, particularly in densely populated areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned some of the excellent work that has been done in his local area on this front. At the end of last summer, the Government announced that all state-funded schools across England will receive at least one AED on site, with more devices delivered to bigger schools, boosting their numbers in communities across the country. In December, we also announced the community defibrillator fund, which gives communities matched funding and aims to install about 1,000 more defibrillators across the country. I know that many hon. Members in this House will want to take up that offer and are spearheading work to get more AEDs out into the community.

To conclude the debate and start the process that we will be going through, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe for raising this hugely important issue. We have heard some truly heartrending stories this evening, and I thank all those involved in The Beat Goes On and other similar organisations for their hugely important work. I promise that this issue will continue to get our utmost attention as a Government.

06/02/2023
Holly Mumby-Croft – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

The speech made by Holly Mumby-Croft, the Conservative MP for Scunthorpe, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak on a genuinely important issue. What I am about to speak about was brought to my attention by my constituents, Stephen and Gill Ayling, who are in the Public Gallery today. They experienced the very worst thing that could ever happen to a parent when, sadly, their son Nathan died at the age of 31 in February 2019. While I was not fortunate enough to have known Nathan, we were close in age and we both went to the same local school.

Nathan lost his life to young sudden cardiac death after a problem with his heart went undetected all his life. Before his death, Nathan appeared fit and healthy. He played football and rugby regularly, and lifted weights and cycled. Stephen and Gill have previously described how they will never, ever be able to escape from the memory of when they found their son, who had died in his bed. As a parent myself, I cannot begin to grasp how utterly shattering that moment must have been. My condolences go out to them and to their family, and to all who knew and loved Nathan.

In the wake of Nathan’s death, Stephen and Gill became involved with the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, which provides heart screenings—I will come on to this later—for young people. Stephen and Gill founded a community group, The Beat Goes On, which is a wonderful name and a wonderful tribute to Nathan. As part of the group, Stephen and Gill raised £10,000 to fund private screenings on 10 and 11 January this year, providing tests for 186 young people in our community. Ten of those young people have been referred for further cardiac investigation. I commend them for all their hard work and put on the record my thanks, and the thanks of many in our area, for all they have done for our community in Scunthorpe.

Last summer, I tabled a written question to ask the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care what steps his Department was taking to increase the diagnosis rate of cardiac conditions in people aged 14 to 35. Once those conditions are diagnosed, it is often possible for them to be treated, either with pharmaceutical or surgical intervention or through lifestyle changes.

In the Government’s response, I was informed:

“Since July 2021, we have launched community diagnostic centres (CDCs) to increase diagnostic activity and reduce patient waiting times. CDCs offer checks, scans and tests in community and other health care settings and delivered over 880,000 diagnostic tests…This will support Primary Care Networks to increase the detection of conditions such as heart valve disease.”

While that answer is good news for some people, I would welcome any assessment the Government have carried out of how helpful those diagnostic centres are in relation to heart conditions in young people specifically.

I was also told:

“The diagnosis of cardiac conditions is based on the presentation of symptoms, rather than the age range of the patient”

or their genetic risk factors. That is a crucial point, and for young people it takes us to the crux of the problem. Research has shown that in 80% of cases of young sudden cardiac death, there were no prior symptoms of a heart defect; no opportunity was presented to step in and intervene and potentially save a young person’s life. As a result, families have lost sons, daughters, brothers and sisters—someone they loved.

Doctors have raised with me their concerns about a completely symptom-focused approach to young people. Aside from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who have this condition do not exhibit symptoms, my understanding is that the symptoms that GPs are trained to look for are breathlessness, heart palpitations, dizziness, chest pain and losing consciousness. Those are common symptoms that can be attributed to other ailments, many of which will be more common in young people. As such, GPs could potentially misdiagnose a heart condition, perhaps providing medication—for anxiety or depression, for instance—that could aggravate an undiagnosed condition.

The best approach to take in healthcare is always a preventive one—a process that intervenes to stop someone suffering or dying. In cases involving young people, the best way to do this may be through proactive screening. The majority of conditions—but not all—associated with sudden cardiac death in the young can be identified on the basis of an electrocardiogram, or ECG, abnormality. That is the type of screening that Stephen and Gill, and other parents like them, and CRY fundraise and campaign for, sometimes resulting in follow-up tests. Approximately one in 300 people screened by CRY will be identified as having a potentially life-threatening condition, and one in 100 will be identified as having a condition that could cause significant problems by the ages of 40 or 50. Those conditions need to be monitored every three to four months, so that action can be taken when most appropriate.

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in 2019 the UK National Screening Council recommended against a systematic screening programme for cardiac conditions in the young. There is set to be another review by the end of this year. I would like to speak briefly first on the previous review, and then on the future one.

One of the reasons cited for not rolling out a screening programme was the continuing uncertainty over the true incidence rate of sudden cardiac death. To say that there was not a consensus on what that figure was would be a gross understatement. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have accurate data on that issue, especially if it is influencing clinical or policy decisions.

In preparation for this debate, I spoke to representatives from CRY. They said that, just on the basis of the number of autopsies they are performing at their centre for cardiac pathology each year, we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem. I want my language to be very clear, so I repeat that they say that we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem.

In order to shed light on the issue, one of the stakeholders contributing to the review stated that it would be

“very helpful if the review outlined more specific research recommendations, providing potential researchers with a framework of the characteristics of a project that could address the uncertainty.”

I have spoken to others involved with the review, who advised me that that framework was not in place. I would be grateful if the Minister could urge the UK National Screening Council to provide clarity, so that we can get reliable data that we can use to make policy decisions. Without that, we risk having an unhelpful fog shrouding this issue; if we do not dispel it, we may lose more lives to undiagnosed heart conditions.

Similarly, there are questions about testing accuracy. Some stakeholders have asked for more specific research recommendations. In particular, it is really important to specify the test, or group of tests, that would enable simultaneous screening for all the potential causes of sudden cardiac death. Again, I ask the Minister to push for those recommendations to be laid down, so that the scientists can get on with the job that they do best.

Looking forward to the next review, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed a timeline for when this will be completed and when we should expect the findings to be published. It is important to note that several other countries are steps ahead of us when it comes to proactive screening programmes, and, although I appreciate that these might be out of scope of the review, I do think it would be a missed opportunity not to raise them. Several American sporting bodies—

Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. My goddaughter, Sophie Pearson, passed away in 2006 at 12 years of age from cardiomyopathy. Sophie’s parents spent many years helping to raise awareness and raise funds. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she is doing and hope that the awareness that she is raising today will go some way in supporting families and avoiding unnecessary deaths of young people.

Holly Mumby-Croft

I am terribly sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, and I thank him for his intervention.

Let me continue on the sporting aspect. Italy has introduced pre-participation screening. Although I appreciate that there are issues with extrapolating the data to the non-athletic population, one study in 2006 did show that screening led to an 89% fall in sudden cardiac death in that cohort.

I know that every Member in this House will be united in wanting to reduce the number of young people dying from undiagnosed cardiac conditions, and expanding access to the screening available will help to reduce that.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and pay tribute to her constituents who are with us today for doing so much to raise funding for screening in our area. She is talking about the important issue of screening, particularly in relation to young people and sporting activities. Is it not also important that we ensure that sports facilities have access to defibrillators for when cardiac arrests take place? She will know that, through North Lincolnshire Council, scores of defibrillators have been funded across our area. With the Government announcing a £1 million fund to expand defibrillators, is it not important that that fund also takes into account sporting clubs and the issue around young people and sudden cardiac arrests?

Holly Mumby-Croft

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he is very well placed to have a view on this matter through his work as a first responder in our community—something that he has been doing for a number of years—so I listen very carefully to him when he raises points around health and care.

I would be grateful if the Minister pushed the points that I have made in relation to the review, with scientists and stakeholders calling for more research to be done. I would also be immensely grateful if the Minister found time—I know that he is incredibly busy—to meet Stephen, Gill and myself to talk about this issue. That would be very much appreciated.

That takes me to the last point that I wish to make, which is once again to thank Stephen and Gill for the work that they have done. Their experience, and Nathan’s experience, was a tragic one. Despite that, they have managed to do fantastic work in our community. I know that, along with me, everyone that they have helped through screening, such as those 10 people who have been referred for further testing, will be extremely grateful to them. I often say in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have many people to be proud of in Scunthorpe. The work that Stephen and Gill are doing puts them very firmly in that category, and I want to be clear today that they have both my support and my thanks.

06/02/2023