UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Grahame Morris – 2022 Speech on Cancer Services

    Grahame Morris – 2022 Speech on Cancer Services

    The speech made by Grahame Morris, the Labour MP for Easington, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I want to express my appreciation for the work of the Select Committee and for the way its Chair, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), presented the report and the way forward. It is very instructive and informative, and I cannot disagree.

    I must make some declarations of interest. I am, and have been for some time, vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy. I want to confine my remarks to radiotherapy, although I do have a broader interest as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. People might not believe this, but I worked for almost 15 years in an NHS diagnostic laboratory, so I have a little bit of knowledge of the front- line. I served for five years as a member of the Health Committee when I was first elected, under the chairmanship of Stephen Dorrell initially and then Sarah Wollaston. I found that to be one of the most interesting and rewarding things I have done in the House of Commons since being elected.

    I also served on the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee—I must thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for putting me on that Committee—which was a marathon. I remind Members who were not around at the time that part of the justification put forward by the then Prime Minister and the coalition Government for those major reforms and restructuring of the national health service, including the commissioning of cancer services, was the poor outcomes on cancer. The system we have now was born out of a recognition that we needed to do better.

    I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who chairs the APPG for radiotherapy, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is an assiduous advocate for improved cancer services, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the country.

    I am delighted that this report signposts the way to future work. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Winchester indicated that it is his intention, with the agreement of the Committee, to do further work on how we might achieve the laudable 75% diagnosis target by 2028. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is responding to the debate. I am sure that, like some of her predecessors, including the hon. Member for Winchester, she will grow tired of me banging the drum for cancer services, and for radiotherapy in particular, but there are some very important points and sound advice that come not from me, although I should say that I am a cancer survivor. I have had lymphatic cancer on three occasions, and I have benefited from surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, so I understand what is involved and I value the vast improvements there have been in all those pillars of cancer treatment.

    The sexy thing on cancer services is early diagnosis. It captures a lot of headlines, and the hon. Member for Winchester was right to point that out, but it goes hand in glove with having the requisite treatment capacity. With the best will in the world, the investment in new diagnostic hubs, which I welcome and is laudable, will simply increase the number of patients in the system. If we are to improve outcomes for cancer patients, we simply must address the issues around cancer treatment capacity.

    I believe the Minister has a copy of the six-point plan for improving outcomes from the APPG and the charity Radiotherapy UK. We are not saying that radiotherapy is somehow in competition with the other pillars of cancer treatment; rather, it complements them. Advancements in science, technology and skills, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, the ability to map tumours precisely and incredible advancements in MRI scanning facilities, used in parallel with precision radiotherapy machines, gives us an opportunity to make a quantum leap in treatment and to improve productivity.

    The cancer workforce is very small; it is only around 6,500 nationally. They are a highly skilled, highly motivated group of individuals who are doing a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to the cancer workforce, particularly those who work in the field of radiotherapy, who are holding the line at the moment and facing growing pressures in the system.

    As a country, we spend about 5% of our dedicated cancer budget—not 5% of the entire NHS budget—on radiotherapy. If we look at international comparators, which we must do, we see that the OECD average is about 9%, so we are spending about half as much as other similar developed industrial nations. To put that into context—because sometimes we get lost in the figures—the NHS spends more on a single cancer drug, Herceptin, than on the entire radiotherapy service across the country.

    I want to touch on commissioning, which is an issue that can be readily addressed and that came about as a consequence of the 2012 Lansley reforms. We took that up directly with the Minister when she kindly met a delegation earlier this week. Cancer services are currently nationally commissioned by NHS England, but there are things that could be done rapidly to increase treatment capacity by addressing some of the anomalies in the current tariff system.

    Perversely, NHS trusts that have the latest advanced precision radiotherapy equipment are financially disadvantaged from using it because of the tariff system. Bizarrely, patients are being treated with 30 fractions of radiotherapy when it is perfectly possible to treat them with four, five or six fractions of precisely delivered radiotherapy if the machines are available and the staff are trained to do it. In many cases, the machines are there but the tariff system works against rolling out that facility. That is completely perverse and it is crazy that we do not do that.

    We can learn from examples of what is happening in similar European countries. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the rapid improvements that have been made in Denmark as a result of having a well-thought-through, well-developed and well-scrutinised plan to improve cancer services. Rightly, some European countries also have diagnostic hubs, but in many cases they are combined diagnostic and treatment hubs, so it is conceivable that patients go in for diagnosis and rapidly begin their treatment—in some European countries, on the same day. Many patients here wait a month, and far too many wait more than two months—62 days—before their treatment starts.

    I have some particular points to make to the Minister, which we also raised with her directly. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the new cancer plan. As a House and as a nation, we need some clarity on whether there will be a new 10-year cancer plan and whether the Department and the Ministers are making the case to the Treasury to secure the necessary funding. I hope that, as part of that, the Minister will look at the six-point plan for improved radiotherapy services that she has in her possession. Even without a cancer plan, however, there are things that could be done immediately to address the issues around the tariff system and the bureaucracy that holds back technology, which NHS England could easily resolve.

    We are going to move to a new commissioning system with integrated care boards over large areas, but they have no capital budget and their funding is revenue based, so we must address the issue of those centres across the country. It is wonderful if people live near the Royal Marsden, which is one of the finest hospitals not just in the country or in London, but probably in the world, but if people live in the south-west, Cumbria or the north-east, they cannot readily access such a tremendous centre. We must address some of those health inequalities before the new commissioning arrangements come in, so that we have a systematic approach to replacing machines that are more than 10 years old, rather than having to make out a business case and compete against other centres that may already be well provided with the latest technology.

    We are on a time limit, so I will wrap up, because I do not want to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker. I give the Minister credit for her commitment and aspiration to improve cancer outcomes and to have a first-class service. I hope that the Health and Social Care Committee will play its role in scrutinising the cancer plan, or the Minister’s plans to improve cancer services. I am pleased that she recognises the validity of the representations that have been made already and that there is an urgent need to address the tariff issue. I would like an assurance that that will be done quickly, not in a year or two, because there is clear evidence that it could improve outcomes and it is what we call low- hanging fruit.

    There is a lot more that I could say and lots of figures that I could quote—for example, I am concerned about the latest cancer waiting times; the Minister attended our presentation where it was shown graphically that there are huge variations across the regions. The Government must address that. I think we could get cross-party support for a sensible cancer plan, so I look forward to seeing the proposals that she comes up with when she has consulted with her colleagues and the Treasury.

  • Steve Brine – 2022 Speech on Cancer Services

    Steve Brine – 2022 Speech on Cancer Services

    The speech made by Steve Brine, the Conservative MP for Winchester, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the Twelfth Report of the Health and Social Care Committee, Session 2021-22, Cancer services, HC 551, and the Government Response, HC 345.

    I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for selecting this topic for debate in the Chamber today. We know that one in two people in the UK will develop cancer at some point in their lives. It is no exaggeration to say that this is an issue that affects everyone in the House—indeed everyone in the country in one way or another—and it has touched my life for the worse many times, as I will talk about later. That is why the Health and Social Care Committee produced a report on cancer services earlier this year, and I pay tribute to my predecessor as Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), for his leadership in producing that work. That awful statistic is also why I have made cancer a priority as the new Chair of the Committee.

    Our report found great strides had indeed been made in improving survival from cancer. Thanks to the tireless work of our scientists, researchers, doctors and nurses and others, including Ministers, over many years, more than half of people diagnosed with cancer now live for five years or more, compared with only one in three people 50 years ago.

    We also heard that cancer survival in England, and indeed in the rest of the UK, continues to lag behind comparable countries around the world. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership explains that just under 60% of people diagnosed with bowel cancer in England, for instance, will live for five years or more, compared with 66.8% in Canada and almost 71% in Australia. The pattern is seen in many other cancer types, including lung cancer, which, of course, took our great friend James Brokenshire last year; pancreatic cancer, which took my own father, who was diagnosed in September 2019 and was dead three days after the general election that December; and ovarian cancer, which has also touched my family and so many people.

    The charity Target Ovarian Cancer came to the House last month—my good friend the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on ovarian cancer, led the reception downstairs in the Churchill Room—and launched its pathfinder study, “Faster, further, and fairer”. The study notes that 4,000 women a year still lose their lives to ovarian cancer. I highly recommend that excellent report to Members.

    We know that one of the biggest reasons for the survival gap—I have just quoted some comparative figures—is that the NHS tends to diagnose fewer cancers at an early stage, when cancer is, of course, much more treatable. Early diagnosis is cancer’s magic key, as has been said so many times from these Benches. NHS England has set a target of diagnosing 75% of cancers at an early stage by 2028, compared with about 54% today. We say that achieving that would make a huge difference to outcomes. I agreed that target when I was the Minister with responsibility for cancer a few years ago, and I firmly believe that it is the right target to give more people the best possible chance of surviving their cancer. But we need to be much more ambitious and get upstream of many cancers—I will return to that point.

    Last month, Dame Cally Palmer, the excellent national cancer director who also works at the Royal Marsden, told us in a special topical session of the Select Committee that she remained “cautiously optimistic” that the 75% target would be met, and told us about some great progress being made on programmes such as targeted lung screening—we have all heard about the supermarket checks—which is diagnosing lots of early-stage lung cancers in the pilot studies and is showing great promise. Dame Cally’s optimism was not, I have to say, entirely shared by many of the experts who gave evidence to our inquiry on cancer services. John Butler, a specialist in ovarian cancer, thought it was “extremely unlikely” that the 75% would be reached, and Dr Jeanette Dickson, an oncologist, said the NHS was doing “very badly” against the target. That is a worry. Regrettably, we concluded in our work that the NHS is not on track to meet the 75% target, and that judgment was shared by the Committee’s independent panel of experts, who evaluated Government progress on cancer services.

    The Government said in their response to us that it was premature to say that progress towards that target is off-track, but the National Audit Office found that, so far this year, 56% of patients are being diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, which is the same proportion as when I made the target in 2019. Of course, that is below the level of improvement required to reach that three-quarters target of early diagnosis by 2028. I do not agree that it can ever be premature to call for more to be done to make progress on early diagnosis when failing to achieve the target could mean many hundreds of thousands of people missing out on early diagnosis and, of course, on a better chance of surviving their cancer and living for longer.

    The Committee heard extremely powerful examples of why it is so important to make more and faster progress on diagnosing cancers earlier. In December 2020, Andrea Brady’s daughter Jess died of stage 4 adenocarcinoma at the age of just 27 years old. Before her diagnosis, Jess had been passed from pillar to post, consulting repeatedly with multiple GPs and other clinicians before her mother was finally forced to pay for a private consultation just to get Jess a diagnosis. By that point, tragically, it was too late. Jess passed away in hospital three and a half weeks after she was diagnosed.

    Meeting the target of diagnosing 75% of cancers at an early stage would mean giving thousands of people a better chance of surviving their cancer, and thousands fewer families having to suffer such terrible losses. That is why we called in our report for the then promised 10-year cancer plan to kickstart progress on early diagnosis. We called for it to consider more radical proposals on how to diagnose more cancers at an early stage, and to include an associated workforce plan to reduce diagnostic bottlenecks in the system.

    Good work is ongoing, and I know that the Minister will talk about it later. New research, such as the NHS-Galleri blood test trial, could be transformative. Indeed, last month our colleagues at NHS England would not be drawn on whether there is a need for a new 10-year cancer plan, as previous Governments have promised. They seemed to imply that a new plan was not needed given the focus of the long-term plan on early diagnosis. I contest that. The consultation on a new 10-year cancer plan was responded to by the sector, charities, royal colleges and many other organisations, and it has set many hares running and created great expectation about a future cancer plan. We on the Committee—I see other Committee members here—are concerned about that. We are not hung up on plans, but in my experience of being a Minister, the NHS loves a plan, the NHS needs a plan, and critically, that would allow this House to see where we are against the plan.

    Achieving early diagnosis is not just about what NHS England can do from the centre. It is also about improving public awareness about the many signs and symptoms of cancer across all communities. It is about making sure that GPs have good systems in place for managing patients with possible cancers and are able, without barriers, to refer them on for tests. It is about the continuous improvement of screening programmes, and hard work—really hard work—in local areas to encourage people to come forward. Of course, one of the great promises of the new integrated care systems is to work with the cancer networks and alliances to deliver on that system of early diagnosis and prevention.

    Achieving early diagnosis is also about focusing research and innovation on developing new ways of detecting cancer—especially cancers that are hard to diagnose—and ensuring that the NHS is set up to roll out new tests quickly. I referred to Galleri earlier, and mentioned upstream cancer. Next year, we will do a piece of work that I loosely call “Future cancer”. It is, of course, important that we diagnose cancers early—that is the basis of my remarks. At the moment, however, we largely diagnose cancers and treat them when they are symptomatic, and we hope to catch those symptoms and treat them early. Many cancers, but not all, are preventable, and I am interested in future cancer. Where can we get upstream of this? Where can we use the NHS’s new genomics strategy? Where can we use biomarkers to get ahead of that? That poses big moral and ethical questions to us as a society, but that is no reason not to go there or not to have that ambition.

    All this is about making sure that there are enough staff and machines in the system to do even more tests and give many more people the best possible chance of being diagnosed with cancer at an early stage. The 10-year cancer plan should look again to make sure that the Government are truly pulling out all the stops to get to 75% early-stage diagnoses by 2028. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are still committed to doing that work.

    Early diagnosis means little if there is not sufficient capacity to provide people with the right treatments at the right time. Unfortunately, the latest data suggests that there has been a decline in the NHS’s ability to provide this treatment. While the vast majority of people do still receive timely treatment following a cancer diagnosis, in September nearly 10% of people waited more than a month for their first treatment following their diagnosis, compared with less than 5% in 2019. That is more than 2,400 people having to wait more than an entire month to begin their cancer treatment—more than double the number who were waiting that long two years prior. As the former cancer director, Professor Sir Mike Richards—a giant in this area—often says, when someone is waiting for a cancer diagnosis or treatment, it is not the 31 days that really matter, but the 31 nights. I know that people around the country will understand that.

    Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)

    I commend the hon. Member, the Chair of the Select Committee, on an excellent report and an excellent analysis of the problems and the way forward, but he referred to the latest cancer waiting times. It is timely that we are having this debate, because the new cancer stats have been published by NHS England today. They show that the position is worsening. In October this year, 39.7% of cancer patients waited beyond 62 days between urgent referral and cancer treatment. There is an urgency in addressing some of the issues that the Chair raises.

    Steve Brine

    Indeed. The reason why we had Dame Cally and Professor Peter Johnson, who is the national clinical director for cancer, into the Select Committee a couple of weeks ago is that the NHS has set itself a deadline of next spring—it was this spring—to get back to the 62-day wait. I have everything I have crossed that they can get there, but they need to make it happen. I know they are relentlessly focused on that, and the Minister is relentlessly focused on that, but we have got to help them get there.

    The Committee also heard about the challenges facing surgery and radiotherapy services, which makes it rather timely that the hon. Gentleman intervened on me at that point, as I suspect he will speak about it later. Professor Pat Price, who he and I are going to meet early in the new year, is a consultant oncologist at Imperial College in London. She told us that radiotherapy services were lacking staff and machines to be able to deliver the best possible care and that services were struggling to deliver the level of activity needed to catch up with the cancer backlog. I will let the hon. Gentleman expand on that a bit later. Professor Mike Griffin, professor of surgery at Newcastle University, also highlighted workforce shortages as a significant barrier to effective cancer surgery, but he also told us about the organisation of services. Because cancer surgery is often co-located within general, acute and emergency care, it can be subject to delay because of capacity shortage, and that was a particular problem during covid in some places, but not everywhere.

    My trust, Hampshire Hospitals, did a brilliant job to keep cancer surgery on track at all times by doing it offsite. I pay tribute to Alex Whitfield and her team at Hampshire Hospitals for the way they organised with Sarum Road private hospital in particular to ensure that patients continued to get their cancer treatment. Professor Griffin called for more ringfenced hubs to be developed so that cancer surgery can continue even when there are severe pressures on acute care, and I hope the Minister refers to that when she winds up.

    Growing the workforce, investing over the long term in machines and IT and reorganising services to create more cancer surgery hubs are all in the Government’s gift, which is why we recommended that they consider those actions in developing the 10-year plan. Without a wider focus on removing the barriers to the NHS delivering the best possible cancer treatments, the potential gains of earlier diagnosis might not be realised. Given the number of people presenting with suspected cancer at the moment—it is good that they are presenting, and many of them will turn out not to have cancer— if it is found that they do have it, we need to move on that. That is why treatment is the other side of the same coin.

    Just as further progress on early diagnosis will depend on research and innovation to develop new tests, improving cancer treatments will require new and more advanced techniques to be developed and implemented by the NHS. We found in the Committee report that the UK is a genuine world leader in research. There are unique aspects to the NHS that make it an effective partner for research organisations. We also heard that there are significant barriers to researchers accessing the data they need for quick and equitable patient recruitment to clinical trials and for staff having the time they need to take part in research. The Government have set out several steps they are taking to improve access to data and improve flexibility for staff wanting to take part in research, and that is welcome, but research by Cancer Research UK has found that the UK’s recovery from the pandemic in clinical trials continues to be outpaced by other comparable countries.

    NHS England told us that supporting clinical research into cancer is not its responsibility, so it is clear that a wider effort is needed to make sure that cancer research taking place in the NHS is well supported and aligned with the priorities for cancer services. That is another reason why the plan is important.

    Finally, we heard that there is significant variation in outcomes for people diagnosed with cancer, depending in part on the type of cancer they are diagnosed with, but also demographic factors. The Government told us that they would be addressing these differences through the levelling-up White Paper, but also through the health disparities White Paper, by addressing issues such as smoking and obesity, which are more prevalent in our more deprived communities.

    On that, there is a story in today’s press which suggests that Britain has the biggest increase in early onset diabetes in the western world. That is a huge concern. I am not suggesting that diabetes is cancer; I am saying that we have many suggested actions to reduce obesity around junk food advertising and stuff that follows on from the sugar tax. Much of that has still not been implemented. Rumours abound—there are always rumours around here—that the Government are seeking to delay junk food advertising restrictions until 2025. I hope that is wrong. I invite the Minister to respond to that when she winds up and, if not, to take that away.

    Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Steve Brine

    I give way to somebody who possibly shares that view.

    Maggie Throup

    I agree 100% with his concerns about the potential watering down of the much-needed anti-obesity measures. Does he agree that it is important that we reflect what the public want? The public are in agreement with banning advertising on TV for particular foods that cause obesity. If we want to keep the public on our side, surely we have to follow their wishes, as well.

    Steve Brine

    I think that is right. The public are clear on this. I get that there are different views across this House and that there are those who disagree with much of the work that my hon. Friend and I did in government to push some of those measures on preventing obesity. I could agree with them, but then we would both be wrong. At the end of the day, obesity is a driver of diabetes, and obesity is a driver of certain cancers. We must take that seriously. Next year, the Select Committee will be doing a huge piece of work on prevention, and we will be returning to that. I hope that Ministers are aware of that.

    The recognition of the importance of health in the levelling-up White Paper is welcome, but without specific actions to address health disparities, this agenda will be at risk, so it is vital that the Government take up the prevention agenda again to stop people developing cancer in the first place. I hope the Minister will have some good news for us on that front, and I recommend that she returns to the prevention Green Paper that we published back in 2019, which contains lots of helpful ideas in that respect.

    Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)

    On that point about health disparities and levelling up, I want to draw attention to the Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, which serves my constituency. The staff who work there do a fantastic job of cancer diagnosis but, given that the target for the number of people seeing a cancer specialist within two weeks is 93%, it is tragic that only fewer than 60% of people who are served by that trust see a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to level across, as well as level up, and think about health disparities across the country?

    Steve Brine

    Yes, of course. I hate the term, but this should not be a postcode lottery. We do have integrated care systems and cancer networks, and good, strong, experienced MPs should be driving those local health economies to ensure that they level themselves up and make use of what is there in the system to deliver as well for their population as other parts of the country do. There could be a lot more sharing among us of how we use that ability as Members of Parliament to drive our systems. I do it in my area, and I am sure the hon. Member does it in his. I thank him for his intervention.

    There are issues of variation affecting cancer specifically, such as proper screening uptake among certain groups, lower referral rates for some cancers and in certain areas, and higher rates of less survivable cancers among more deprived groups. We called for NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities to produce an action plan for addressing disparities in cancer and for the much talked about 10-year cancer plan to include a specific action schedule for rarer and less survivable cancers. That remains, for us, a vital aspect of improving cancer services, and we hope that the long-term cancer plan—should one arrive—makes that part of its work.

    Last month, NHS England made it clear to us that it was focusing on delivering the NHS long-term plan for cancer. In many ways, that emphasis on delivery is welcome. The programmes being implemented as part of that work are positive, and I have covered some of them today, but recent research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership has shown that national cancer plans are worth far more than the paper they are written on. The ICBP found that the countries that have made the biggest improvements in cancer since 1995 are those that have ambitious, detailed and costed plans for improving cancer services that are open to scrutiny by those whose job it is to do that—namely, us. Denmark and England used to be at the bottom of the league table for cancer, but thanks to consistent national cancer plans with associated long-term investment, the Danes have made rapid improvements, and they now leave us lagging behind.

    In conclusion, the Health and Social Care Committee’s report on cancer services found that there are many areas where the Government and the NHS are doing really good work and using the unique benefits of our national health service, but there are too many other areas where we can go further and faster to improve cancer services and outcomes. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to do so through the promised 10-year cancer plan.

  • Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    The decision has been condemned by the Chair of the Climate Change Committee. Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, retweeted that this is

    “climate vandalism and economic incompetence on a scale difficult to believe”.

    The International Energy Agency previously stated that no further fossil fuel projects can be built if net zero is to be achievable by 2050 and OECD countries need to end use of coal by 2030, so why license this mine to 2049? Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, called it

    “a completely unnecessary step for the British Steel Industry”.

    Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute research centre, previously advised that British Steel could not use this coal because it is

    “not of the right quality”.

    The reality is that 85% of this coal is going to be exported, so talking about cancelling imports is a complete red herring. What we are doing is increasing our carbon footprint to support industry in the EU. It is illogical and we know demand for coking coal will fall, as the EU is further ahead on the development of green steel. Where is the UK progress on green steel? Coking coal is not even identified on the UK’s critical mineral strategy or in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, although it is a critical mineral for the EU. But, clearly, this mine is not needed for the UK. Given this decision, what steps are being taken to rapidly accelerate the net zero pathway, for example, by changing the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster to track 1 status?

    The Secretary of State hides behind the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate. Why did his Government override the Planning Inspectorate on Sizewell C? This coking coal is not critical for the UK. It is going to be exported, so why has he made this decision just to appease Tory Back-Bench climate change cynics?

    Michael Gove

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He quotes a number of individuals and draws explicitly—he was good enough to acknowledge this—party political conclusions. I relied on the inspector’s report and on the evidence in front of me. As I explained in my decision letter, no evidence was provided to suggest that any other metallurgical coal mine in the world aspires to be net zero, so the proposed mine is likely to be much better placed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions than comparative mining operations around the world. On that basis, it is entirely in keeping with our net zero commitments, and indeed with the commitment to not only jobs, but the environment, to approve the inspector’s case.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Lisa Nandy – 2022 Speech on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP for Wigan, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    I have one question for the Secretary of State: what on earth is he thinking? The decision to greenlight the reopening of the Woodhouse colliery is bad policy and bad politics. It is the latest in a string of absurd decisions from a Government in chaos, causing chaos in this Chamber and out there in the country. They are in office but not in power.

    This mine will produce coking coal used for steel, not for electricity generation. So, as the Secretary of State has had to admit today, the claim it helps to safeguard our energy security is nonsense, but it gets worse. The two big steel producers, Tata and British Steel, are phasing out this coal in favour of lower-carbon production methods. By the mid-2030s, at best, the UK will use less than 10% of the mine’s output. Across the world, demand for coking coal is projected to fall off a cliff, by 88%, by 2050.

    People in Cumbria deserve a long-term future, with lasting, well-paid jobs that power us through the next century. Instead, they are saddled with a weak, short-sighted and unambitious Government who, only two months ago, rejected a plan to bring new nuclear to Cumbria, which would have created not 500 short-term jobs but 10,000 jobs for the long term.

    The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is supposed to be the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. The Tories were once the party of conservation, and now they are the party of environmental vandalism. He can fiddle the figures all he likes, but the reality is that this mine is projected to increase emissions by 0.4 million tonnes a year, according to his own advisers. That is equivalent to putting 200,000 more cars on the road every single year.

    This decision flies in the face of Britain’s net zero objectives, contradicts the aims of the UK’s COP26 presidency and undermines the 2019 Conservative manifesto. This is chaos. Successive Secretaries of State are contradicting each other and the Government’s independent adviser on climate change condemned the decision as “indefensible” even as the Secretary of State stands here trying to defend it.

    The Secretary of State told us that coal has no part to play in future power generation. He cannot even agree with himself. No leadership abroad. No leadership at home. Unable to lead even in his own party. I hope he will at least reassure the House today that this bizarre decision, which he cannot even defend, was not part of a deal to buy off Back Benchers after his U-turn earlier this week on onshore wind.

    People in Britain deserve better. Right across the country, communities such as mine in Wigan and across Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria are proud of our mining heritage and of the contribution we made to this country, but we want a Government who look forward and match our ambition so that, through clean energy, our young people can power us through the next century like their parents and grandparents powered us through the last. Where is the ambition? Where is the leadership? Where is the government?

    The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)

    Mr Speaker, thank you for your ruling earlier. I apologise to you and to the House. No discourtesy was intended. I appreciate the importance of maintaining the courtesies of the House, particularly with regard to statements.

    As I mentioned earlier, the context of this statement is a quasi-judicial process on a planning application. I always admire the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and she asks, “Where is the ambition? Where is the leadership?” I think we all know where the ambition and the leadership is: it is sitting right across from me.

    The hon. Lady will have her own views on future demand for coking coal, but I fear she elides the difference between coking coal used for metallurgical purposes and coal used for energy generation purposes. The inspector’s report makes it clear that coking coal is used not for energy purposes but purely for metallurgical purposes, for the manufacture of steel. Of course, we will need steel for decades to come, including in the renewables sector. How else will we ensure that we supply all the materials necessary for onshore wind and other renewable energy without using steel? If she or anybody else in the House has an answer, I and millions of scientists would love to hear it.

    It is important to look at the inspector’s report, as I have in detail. The inspector makes it clear on page 239, in paragraph 21.37, that in all the scenarios and forecasts presented to him there was

    “continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades.”

    He also made it clear that, at the moment, imports of coking coal come from Australia, the USA and Russia. As I pointed out in the statement, and as the inspector makes clear, no evidence has been provided to suggest that any other metallurgical coal mine in the world aspires to be net zero in the way the Whitehaven development does. Again, the inspector makes it clear that the

    “development would to some extent support the transition to a low carbon future as a consequence of the provision of a currently needed resource from a mine that aspires to be net zero.”

    The European Commission is clear that coking coal is a critical part of steel and that steel is necessary to the future of Europe. We recognise that the demand for this coking coal, both in the UK and in Europe, is better supplied from a net zero mine than from other alternatives. As the inspector makes clear, this decision will also be responsible for high-skilled, high-value jobs in Cumbria, alongside other jobs in the supply chain elsewhere, and that is without prejudice to the other investment that the Government are making in clean green energy sources alongside it.

    The inspector’s report is clear and, in responding to the questions from the hon. Member for Wigan, I urge every Member of the House to read the inspector’s report in full, alongside my decision letter. Those 350 pages lay out the evidence. They present the arguments for and against the decision. The inspector, an independent planning expert, has concluded that this development should go ahead and I agree with him.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Breach of the Ministerial Code on the Woodhouse Colliery Parliamentary Debate

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Breach of the Ministerial Code on the Woodhouse Colliery Parliamentary Debate

    The third statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 8 December 2022.

    In a moment, we will resume proceedings on the statement started earlier by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Before we do so, I put on record my dismay that the Government have failed to follow not just the clear, long-established conventions of the House but their own rules. The “Ministerial Code” says:

    “A copy of the text of an oral statement should usually be shown to the Opposition shortly before it is made. For this purpose, 15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made. At the same time, a copy of the final text of an oral statement should in all cases be sent in advance to the Speaker.”

    The key point here is “final text”. It is not acceptable to provide a brief precis of a statement that is then significantly expanded by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, as this means the Opposition have no meaningful advance notice and—this is my main concern—that Members do not have the detail they need in written form so they can properly ask questions of the Minister.

    This situation is simply not acceptable and has caused the House very serious inconvenience, and it must not happen again. I have decided to allow the proceedings on the statement to continue, for Members to question the Secretary of State. Given the exceptional nature of this morning’s events, I will call Members who were not present when the Secretary of State delivered his initial statement but who are present now.

    I am very grateful to Hansard for quickly producing a transcript of the Secretary of State’s statement, but I emphasise that it should not have to be expected to do so.

  • Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    The speech made by Deidre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

    The Minister might want to look at the failed Pick for Britain scheme in reference to those comments. The National Farmers Union’s findings suggest a shocking £60 million-worth of food had been wasted in the first half of the year because of labour shortages. Of course, if the UK Government had listened to the SNP, free movement would be presenting a solution to many of these issues.

    Will the Minister now listen to calls from Scotland’s External Affairs Secretary and consider a 24-month temporary visa rather than the short-term sticking plaster approach that we have seen so far? Will he also consider the proposal made by the SNP Government in 2020 through which migrants wanting to work in Scotland could choose to apply for a Scottish visa as well as the Scottish Government’s call for a rural visa pilot to meet the distinct needs of Scotland’s remote rural and island areas? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland all operate successful visa systems that offer a tailored response to the immigration needs of those countries. Why do UK Ministers insist on such a rigid one-size-fits-all approach?

    Robert Jenrick

    There is no significant evidence to suggest that the UK labour market varies so greatly between the nations that we need to take different approaches in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is better that we remain within the United Kingdom and that we have one single immigration policy covering the whole Union.

    On the hon. Lady’s central suggestion that leaving the European Union has led to a diminution of workers available within the economy, that simply is not true. We have just seen figures published showing that net migration was over 500,000 last year and that 1 million people entered the UK last year. They are very substantial numbers. The Home Office issued 350,000 work visas last year. We are ultimately a small country with finite resources, limited housing and pressure on public services. It is right that the Government take their responsibilities seriously, take decisions in the round and try, over time, to bring down net migration.

    The seasonal agricultural worker scheme exists to fill in some gaps. The choice of 40,000 does appear to have been broadly borne out by the evidence that we are close to the end of the year and there are still 1,400 places outstanding, so the decision made by my predecessors has been broadly correct. We are in the process of analysing whether we need to continue or expand it next year, and I will make a statement on that very soon.

  • Jess Phillips – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    Jess Phillips – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    The speech made by Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    I thank the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for asking this urgent question today. He has drawn attention to concerns faced by the daffodil industry in Cornwall—a place I hope to visit over the Christmas break; I am often in his constituency—and those concerns are shared by sectors throughout these industries.

    The National Farmers Union says that as much as £60 million of food has been wasted on farms due to labour shortages. During a cost of living crisis, that is disgraceful. Where shortages are linked to pay and conditions, those must be improved, and we will work with industry to deliver. However, countries across the world require seasonal schemes to help support agriculture and horticulture. We need a properly delivered seasonal worker scheme, announced in advance with long-term action to tackle shortages, not panicked short-term announcements without any underlying strategy.

    The average time taken to process a sponsorship application has more than trebled over recent years, meaning less certainty for business and more produce going to waste. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce that time? The Home Office has been warned about exploitation in this scheme, including from the results of a Government review last year and reports of recruitment fees charged by agents abroad. Have those warnings been listened to, and what safeguards have been introduced to ensure serious exploitation is not allowed to continue? Finally, this is the latest in a long series of delays, backlogs and chaos from the Home Office. It is not fair on the public and it is not fair on the sectors that rely on the Government to run smoothly; can we confidently say that this is a Home Office we can trust to get a grip?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those points. The scheme is broadly operating as it is designed to, which is shown by the fact that about 1,400 certificates are unused as of today’s date. So the overall quota of 40,000 places a year is approximately the right number. We are, as ever, discussing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether that quota should remain the same next year or be higher. A statement on that will be made imminently. However, the decision made by my Department—with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—to choose 40,000 appears to have been about the right number.

    In terms of the scheme’s operation, we need to ensure that it is as smooth as possible because no business deserves to be put through unnecessary bureaucracy to gain access to the workers it needs. The hon. Lady is right to say that, although of course we want to make the best use of our domestic workforce, there will always be—as there has been—a need for some seasonal workers to come into the UK from overseas. That is exactly why the scheme exists.

    On ensuring that those who come under the scheme are properly looked after and not abused, every one of the four or five operators of the scheme is licensed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, and it is its responsibility, together with my Department, to ensure that those seasonal workers are looked after appropriately and do not fall inadvertently into modern slavery or other poor practices. We at the Home Office have a duty to ensure that those individuals come for the right reasons, that their employers treat them appropriately and that the scheme is not abused. There is a significant minority of people who come under the scheme and subsequently choose to apply for asylum, which is one of the many things that we have to take seriously when deciding the number of individuals who can enter under the scheme each year, but I am certainly sympathetic to the needs of our food and drink sector and will work closely with the Environment Secretary to choose the right number of places for next year. As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend, we will make an announcement soon.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Seasonal Worker Visas

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking this urgent question. The Home Office recognises the importance of the UK food and drink sector, and the agricultural industry that supplies it. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme exists to support those businesses and ensure that they have the labour they need. The quota for 2022 was 38,000 workers for the edible and ornamental horticulture sector, and a further 2,000 for the poultry sector. That quota has not yet been met, and the Home Office’s management data suggest that about 1,400 places remain.

    An announcement on the 2023 scheme is imminent. My Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be making that statement very soon. In the meantime, workers already in the United Kingdom under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme can continue to take other work placements and to stay in the UK for up to six months, even if that involves remaining here into 2023. Further workers can avail themselves of the remaining 1,400 certificates and enter the UK this year—even if, again, that means staying into 2023—for the duration of their six-month placement. My Department is committed to supporting this important sector and to working with stakeholders to improve the delivery of schemes such as the one for seasonal agricultural workers.

    George Eustice

    The seasonal worker visa scheme has been a tremendous success—perhaps one of the most successful Home Office policies in recent years—and this year it has provided about two thirds of the labour needs of the horticultural sector. However, there have been some serious problems with administration. In particular, scheme operators need to be issued with an allocation of certificates of sponsorship now, so that they can recruit people and secure the visas necessary for workers to start in January.

    Last year, the Home Office allowed certificates of sponsorship in 2021 to be used as the basis for workers arriving in January 2022. This year, for reasons that have not been properly explained, Home Office officials have taken a decision not to allow that and have made it clear to operators that they cannot use that route. Indeed, I understand that they have closed the ability to issue certificates of sponsorship from the end of November, so that no one at the moment is able to issue them.

    There are two legitimate courses of action. One would be to allow the same situation to apply as last year, and enable the remaining certificates of sponsorship for this year to be used for workers arriving in January. The second course of action would be to make a provisional allocation of certificates of sponsorship on the sponsorship management system run by the Home Office. This could be done very easily and would enable operators to recruit staff in the next few weeks.

    That is of critical importance to the daffodil industry in my constituency. Daffodil growers currently have around a third of their staff from last year’s scheme, a third of them being settled EU citizens. At the moment they are going to have a gap of between 30% and 40% of their staffing needs, which will be catastrophic for the industry by the end of January. So will the Minister take immediate action directing his officials to put a provisional allocation of certificates for sponsorship on to the Home Office sponsorship management system?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who of course brings more expertise to this issue than anybody in the House. He rightly says that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been a success and is an important contributor to the food and drink sector in this country, but he raises important issues, and I intend to take them up with my officials.

    Parts of the sector, such as the daffodil industry, require workers early in the year, meaning that we need to take steps to ensure that those businesses can make sensible recruitment decisions in good time, and not leave these decisions, as has happened too often, to the eleventh hour. I appreciate that last year the decision on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was announced on Christmas eve, which no doubt was a cause of significant frustration for those working in the sector. I will work intensively with my officials to ensure that we get that decision out as quickly as possible.

    In the interim, two options are available to the industry: first, to make use of workers already in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme who have been doing other work until now but might want to move into a sector such as daffodils as quickly as possible for the remainder of their time in the UK; secondly, new individuals could enter the UK under the scheme using the undercapacity within the 2022 placement, and stay into 2023.

    My right hon. Friend raises with me this morning the issue that the Home Office has frozen certificates, making it impossible for employers to bring people in and make use of the remaining certificates in this year’s quota. I have been informed by my officials this morning that nothing has changed from the way the scheme worked last year. If that is incorrect, I will change that today and ensure that the scheme is unfrozen so that important employers such as those my right hon. Friend rightly represents can make use of the remaining certificates before the end of the year. If it is correct that the Home Office has frozen these certificates, I apologise to businesses who have been inadvertently inconvenienced by that and I hope that the Environment Secretary and I can resolve this as quickly as possible.

  • Mary Glindon – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Industrial Relations in the Civil Service

    Mary Glindon – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Industrial Relations in the Civil Service

    The parliamentary question asked by Mary Glindon, the Labour MP for North Tyneside, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)

    What assessment he has made of the state of industrial relations in the civil service.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    What assessment he has made of the state of industrial relations in the civil service.

    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)

    The Cabinet Office is not the employer of all civil servants, and Departments are responsible for engaging with recognised trade unions at departmental and local level. The Public and Commercial Services Union is currently in dispute with a number of civil service employers and has called for strike action in several Departments. We remain open to continued dialogue to bring about a resolution.

    Mary Glindon

    Following a ballot of more than 150,000 civil servant PCS members, a massive 86.2% voted for strike action on pay, pensions, job cuts and redundancy terms. The strikes will start next week at the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency, National Highways and the Rural Payments Agency. Does the Minister accept that responsibility for this situation lies firmly with his Government for imposing an insulting pay deal of just under 3%—a substantial real-terms pay cut—amid a cost of living crisis?

    Jeremy Quin

    As the hon. Lady said, 214 ballots took place and 124 hit the relevant thresholds for strike action. That is something I greatly regret, because it will impact the citizens of this country and how they go about their day-to-day work. We will do our utmost to mitigate that and protect the people from the impact of those strikes, but they should not be taking place and I very much regret that they are. I hope that the hon. Lady and this House will recognise that with inflation at 11%, providing an 11% increase across the public sector would equate to about £28 billion—just under £1,000 per household. So I really regret that the unions have felt it necessary to take this action. Our door remains open; we would like to speak to them. We would rather that this was not taking place, but we have to be realistic about the constraints on public expenditure at present.

    Chris Stephens

    I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. With workers in 124 Government departments and public bodies now having that mandate for strike action, a responsible Government would get around the table for meaningful talks with the civil service trade unions. Is that happening? Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid the widespread disruption, and how they plan to bring forward a fair deal on pay, investment in jobs and an end to the attack on terms and conditions for civil service workers?

    Jeremy Quin

    We will do our utmost to ensure that public services continue and that the public do not suffer as a result of these strikes, although inconvenience is inevitable when strike action of this nature takes place. I regret that it is taking place. I hope that the workers involved will not go on strike and will continue to work in the public interest. We really value the work and the services they do, but there has to be a recognition that the scale of demands being made on us is not affordable for the taxpayer at this time. That is sad, but it is a fact.

  • Lyn Brown – 2022 Speech on the NHS Workforce

    Lyn Brown – 2022 Speech on the NHS Workforce

    The speech made by Lyn Brown, the Labour MP for West Ham, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2022.

    Across north-east London, our population is set to grow by the total of the population of Dover in just the next five years. By 2042, the added population will be the size of Milton Keynes. We have the highest rate of NHS vacancies in London. We simply cannot go on without long-term workforce planning and investment in staff and in services. We have lost a large number of international staff since Brexit, and retention is a massive problem, with an annual staff turnover of almost 17% in the Government’s recruitment campaign for nurses.

    We have the highest spend on agency staff in the region—10% of some staffing budgets goes to agencies. But even with all that money being spent, our operating theatres are struggling to find enough bank and agency staff to fill the gaps. How on earth are we going to tackle the backlog if our theatres cannot be used to full capacity? How are we going to get patients in and out of hospital quickly if their operations are being delayed?

    In Newham, maternity is one of the worst affected NHS services. As we know, high-quality accessible maternity care saves lives, and local need is massive. We have very high levels of poverty, as well as demographic pressures from our rapid population growth. There is a 19% vacancy rate on our maternity wards; almost a fifth of roles have no one to do the job, so non-specialist nurses are filling in for midwives. Surely, that has an impact on the quality of care. Sometimes, even women who have been assessed as having a higher risk cannot be admitted because there are, frankly, not enough fully staffed beds, so they are sent home instead, with an obvious increased risk.

    One of our birth units is being closed repeatedly so that staff can transfer elsewhere and keep hospital services running. Those forced closures took place for almost 10% of the year to August. Surely, that increases costs for the NHS, as lower-risk births end up having to take place in hospital.

    Every part of the NHS is creaking, and we are getting closer to collapse because workforce issues have been neglected. We have known that these problems have been getting worse for years now, exacerbated by austerity. This ain’t just about midwives and doctors; there is a shortage of admin staff, too, which is leading to a higher number of antenatal appointments being missed. So, when patients have to go into hospital even though they could be treated more effectively in less expensive settings, and when appointments are missed and preventive care does not take place, what happens? Costs go up for our NHS. The Government’s failure to recruit and retain enough staff is making our NHS less effective in terms of value for public money and is, let us face it, putting lives at risk, too.

    In north-east London, we have the most diverse integrated care system population and the highest birth rate in the country. We know that if maternity patients do not get the care that they need, the risks are high. We have all heard the terrible statistics about women from black communities being four times more likely to die in childbirth than women from white communities. If we are to address that shameful injustice and end those deaths, Newham is one of our frontlines. But the reality is that our response is being held back and women put in greater danger because our NHS simply does not have the staff. The Government need to understand that many of those difficulties could get even worse without change. As we know, so many of our health and care staff are simply exhausted. They are working all the harder to fill in for vacancies. Often, they are offered less flexible work because the demand on services is so acute and no one can fill in the gaps.

    A decade of austerity and the cost of living crisis have taken a huge toll. Locally, 17% of our skilled and experienced nursing staff are over 55. Many of those who keep our services going—or barely running—do not have many working years left in them. We can see that this is completely and utterly unsustainable. The dedication of our NHS staff, for which we rightly praised them so highly during the pandemic, has its limits. How much closer to collapse will our NHS get if these pressures continue to build? How many more patients will be let down? Frankly, a Labour Government cannot come soon enough.