Westminster Hall
Thursday 3rd September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:30
13:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Order! Order! We begin with the Select committee statement. Peter Swallow will speak on the publication of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System in England. HC161 for up to ten minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Peter Swallow to respond to these.
In turn, questions should be brief and members may ask only one question each. I call Peter Swallow on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
In turn, questions should be brief and members may ask only one question each. I call Peter Swallow on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
13:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honour to serve under you in the chair. And can I start by thanking the backbench Business Committee for granting this statement and to my fellow members of the Human Rights Committee for asking me to make it. I'm also very grateful to my honourable friend, the Children's Minister, for attending this statement. As he knows, I never I never missed an opportunity when I see him to raise the progress of my local school, but I thought I'd get it in right at the start so I can focus on what we're actually here to talk about today.
The very, very important matter of children's social care. This statement sets out the work done and the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Children's Human rights in the social care system in England. And it goes without saying that the state's ability to intervene into families, to remove children, where and only where it is deemed absolutely necessary for a child's welfare in the first instance, is amongst the gravest and most serious of its responsibilities.
But the responsibility the state then takes over that child and how they are cared for next is equally as serious, and has the capacity to shape the rest of that child's life. No parliamentary speech can truly do justice to the experiences of the care experienced young people the committee spoke to in Leeds, in York and at our round Table in Parliament during the work of putting together this report. What we heard from them will stay with me for the rest of my life, and I want to extend the committee's sincere thanks to each and every one of them for giving voice to their experiences in this work.
I hope they see their voice reflected in the recommendations we have made. Many of the young people I spoke to were curious about how a select committee inquiry works, but also skeptical that anything they may say could possibly hope to have a difference over the social care system in the UK. I hope this skepticism may prove unfounded, and I take by the fact that my honourable friend, the Minister for children, is in his place today, that he is willing to listen to these young people's experiences.
If I could summarize all that the committee heard in one sentence, it would be this the outcomes of children in and around the care system are too often marred by challenge and difficulty , and end too often in tragedy. During their experience in the care system. Children are regularly left with inadequate mental health support, despite the substantial trauma they may have faced. For some young people, this means that we're challenging behaviours which in a family home may be met with support and love arise.
They are often instead handled by services including the police, meaning the care system itself can be a driver of criminalisation when they then leave care as young people. The committee heard that they are too often met by a cliff edge, over which they are left alone to navigate adult life without suitable support and the enduring social networks so many of us rely on. This means some fall into destructive behaviors and relationships and can again end in criminalization, mental health difficulties, and isolation.
These are troubling outcomes in and of themselves, but they can also lead to something far more tragic. I want to touch on the recent review into early deaths of care leavers, commissioned by my honourable friend and led by Ashley John Baptiste and Claire Chamberlain, which was published just after the committee's report and which demonstrates this point exceptionally starkly, Madam chair. Care leavers between the ages of 18 to 24 had a death rate in 2025, 3 to 4 times higher than that of the general population.
The report offers a window into the lives and experiences of some of these young people, who have died far sooner than they should have, including how the services which are supposed to support them both during their formal time in the social care system and after, could and should have served them better. That's why the committee is clear that more targeted support must be made available for young people when they are in, and leaving the social care system with greater discretion to extend it.
Past age cut offs where necessary. The government must do more to work with young people, local authorities, the police, social work professionals and others to address the root causes of the challenges too often faced by care. Experienced children and adults. Throughout our evidence gathering, the committee heard that the legal framework around children's social care must be reformed and strengthened to deliver a reality where children and professionals understand and can advocate for their rights.
And one of the most commonly made recommendations we received was also one of the simplest, despite what I know to be the very genuine commitment of this and previous governments to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The convention remains unincorporated into domestic law in England. Evidence given by bodies including the Children's Commissioner, Unicef and all highlighted incorporation as an area with potential for significant and wide ranging impact on children's rights, and the Committee recommends its full incorporation.
All children who are in and around the social care system are already vulnerable, but those who have disabilities often face extra barriers and challenges, and the committee heard that these difficulties were often only exacerbated by the disjointed and peaceful, piecemeal legal landscape, which comprises the Disabled Children's Social Care framework. This framework is complex and difficult to navigate for professionals, let alone families and the young people themselves. For this reason, the committee is in agreement with the Law Commission that there should be one single, comprehensive piece of statutory guidance on disabled children's social care law, as well as an explicit duty to assess where need is identified.
The committee also heard that provision of support following assessment is an area where postcode lotteries play an outsized role and therefore supports the Law Commission's recommendation of the introduction of National eligibility criteria to standardise support across local authorities. On top of this, the current working definition of disability and the Children Act 1999 is outdated and must be updated using the language of the Equality Act to be truly inclusive and reflective of the needs of children today.
Madam chair, I remember many of the conversations I had on the doorstep during the general election, but one in particular will stay with me forever. I knocked on the door of a woman who took a good look at me and asked if I knew what a kinship carer was. I have to confess, Madam Chair, that at the time I didn't. I say this because I suspect that I was not alone in that. Despite the fact that kinship care is the most common form of alternative care for children in the UK and across the world.
I'm incredibly humbled by the opportunity I've had to speak to those who are delivering kinship care in Bracknell Forest since the election, and also want to pay tribute to the work of charities like kinship, who work so hard to represent them and therefore I welcome the work the Law Commission is doing on a legal on legal reform of kinship care, including how the legal framework relating to kinship care can be clarified. And I know that the committee is looking forward to seeing the outcome of this work.
Madam chair, the children's social care market is fundamentally broken, and across the country, children are being placed in unsuitable and in some cases illegal and unregulated accommodation, lacking proper safeguards and scrutiny, and away from vital support networks of family and friends. At the same time, the cost of residential accommodation is hitting local authorities already stretched budgets. So I welcome the introduction of new powers under the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act for Ofsted to issue fines for breaches of the Care Standards Act and the introduction of regional care cooperatives to drive up standards and end profiteering.
But the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act will also require local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their siblings, and this is to be welcomed. But the government does need to follow the implementation of this closely, and that was one of the conclusions of our report. I could say much more about the complaint system, about the rights of unoccupied asylum seekers, of which all is included in the report. I just want to finish again by thanking the minister, paying tribute to my colleagues on the committee and thanking yet again the voices of those young people who spoke to us during our inquiry.
The very, very important matter of children's social care. This statement sets out the work done and the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Children's Human rights in the social care system in England. And it goes without saying that the state's ability to intervene into families, to remove children, where and only where it is deemed absolutely necessary for a child's welfare in the first instance, is amongst the gravest and most serious of its responsibilities.
But the responsibility the state then takes over that child and how they are cared for next is equally as serious, and has the capacity to shape the rest of that child's life. No parliamentary speech can truly do justice to the experiences of the care experienced young people the committee spoke to in Leeds, in York and at our round Table in Parliament during the work of putting together this report. What we heard from them will stay with me for the rest of my life, and I want to extend the committee's sincere thanks to each and every one of them for giving voice to their experiences in this work.
I hope they see their voice reflected in the recommendations we have made. Many of the young people I spoke to were curious about how a select committee inquiry works, but also skeptical that anything they may say could possibly hope to have a difference over the social care system in the UK. I hope this skepticism may prove unfounded, and I take by the fact that my honourable friend, the Minister for children, is in his place today, that he is willing to listen to these young people's experiences.
If I could summarize all that the committee heard in one sentence, it would be this the outcomes of children in and around the care system are too often marred by challenge and difficulty , and end too often in tragedy. During their experience in the care system. Children are regularly left with inadequate mental health support, despite the substantial trauma they may have faced. For some young people, this means that we're challenging behaviours which in a family home may be met with support and love arise.
They are often instead handled by services including the police, meaning the care system itself can be a driver of criminalisation when they then leave care as young people. The committee heard that they are too often met by a cliff edge, over which they are left alone to navigate adult life without suitable support and the enduring social networks so many of us rely on. This means some fall into destructive behaviors and relationships and can again end in criminalization, mental health difficulties, and isolation.
These are troubling outcomes in and of themselves, but they can also lead to something far more tragic. I want to touch on the recent review into early deaths of care leavers, commissioned by my honourable friend and led by Ashley John Baptiste and Claire Chamberlain, which was published just after the committee's report and which demonstrates this point exceptionally starkly, Madam chair. Care leavers between the ages of 18 to 24 had a death rate in 2025, 3 to 4 times higher than that of the general population.
The report offers a window into the lives and experiences of some of these young people, who have died far sooner than they should have, including how the services which are supposed to support them both during their formal time in the social care system and after, could and should have served them better. That's why the committee is clear that more targeted support must be made available for young people when they are in, and leaving the social care system with greater discretion to extend it.
Past age cut offs where necessary. The government must do more to work with young people, local authorities, the police, social work professionals and others to address the root causes of the challenges too often faced by care. Experienced children and adults. Throughout our evidence gathering, the committee heard that the legal framework around children's social care must be reformed and strengthened to deliver a reality where children and professionals understand and can advocate for their rights.
And one of the most commonly made recommendations we received was also one of the simplest, despite what I know to be the very genuine commitment of this and previous governments to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The convention remains unincorporated into domestic law in England. Evidence given by bodies including the Children's Commissioner, Unicef and all highlighted incorporation as an area with potential for significant and wide ranging impact on children's rights, and the Committee recommends its full incorporation.
All children who are in and around the social care system are already vulnerable, but those who have disabilities often face extra barriers and challenges, and the committee heard that these difficulties were often only exacerbated by the disjointed and peaceful, piecemeal legal landscape, which comprises the Disabled Children's Social Care framework. This framework is complex and difficult to navigate for professionals, let alone families and the young people themselves. For this reason, the committee is in agreement with the Law Commission that there should be one single, comprehensive piece of statutory guidance on disabled children's social care law, as well as an explicit duty to assess where need is identified.
The committee also heard that provision of support following assessment is an area where postcode lotteries play an outsized role and therefore supports the Law Commission's recommendation of the introduction of National eligibility criteria to standardise support across local authorities. On top of this, the current working definition of disability and the Children Act 1999 is outdated and must be updated using the language of the Equality Act to be truly inclusive and reflective of the needs of children today.
Madam chair, I remember many of the conversations I had on the doorstep during the general election, but one in particular will stay with me forever. I knocked on the door of a woman who took a good look at me and asked if I knew what a kinship carer was. I have to confess, Madam Chair, that at the time I didn't. I say this because I suspect that I was not alone in that. Despite the fact that kinship care is the most common form of alternative care for children in the UK and across the world.
I'm incredibly humbled by the opportunity I've had to speak to those who are delivering kinship care in Bracknell Forest since the election, and also want to pay tribute to the work of charities like kinship, who work so hard to represent them and therefore I welcome the work the Law Commission is doing on a legal on legal reform of kinship care, including how the legal framework relating to kinship care can be clarified. And I know that the committee is looking forward to seeing the outcome of this work.
Madam chair, the children's social care market is fundamentally broken, and across the country, children are being placed in unsuitable and in some cases illegal and unregulated accommodation, lacking proper safeguards and scrutiny, and away from vital support networks of family and friends. At the same time, the cost of residential accommodation is hitting local authorities already stretched budgets. So I welcome the introduction of new powers under the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act for Ofsted to issue fines for breaches of the Care Standards Act and the introduction of regional care cooperatives to drive up standards and end profiteering.
But the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act will also require local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their siblings, and this is to be welcomed. But the government does need to follow the implementation of this closely, and that was one of the conclusions of our report. I could say much more about the complaint system, about the rights of unoccupied asylum seekers, of which all is included in the report. I just want to finish again by thanking the minister, paying tribute to my colleagues on the committee and thanking yet again the voices of those young people who spoke to us during our inquiry.
13:39
13:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Madam Chair, thank you. First of all, can I thank very much the honourable gentleman and the chair of the Select Committee and the honourable members for their recommendations and some of the the stories that the honourable gentleman referred to in his introduction in setting the scene for the Select Committee are indeed harrowing and incredibly worrying. But the thing is, the change, transparent change would be can be made, physical change can be made, and things can get better. So my question, Madam Chair, to to the the chair of the Select Committee is this.
The protection of children is incredibly important. And will the Select Committee and ultimately the Minister share the findings and the recommendations with us back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Whereas, the devolved matter, where we can then also intimate and make the changes that are necessary there as well. Thank you.
The protection of children is incredibly important. And will the Select Committee and ultimately the Minister share the findings and the recommendations with us back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Whereas, the devolved matter, where we can then also intimate and make the changes that are necessary there as well. Thank you.
13:40
13:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
promoting me. I am not, in fact, the chair of the Select Committee, which is my noble friend Lord Alton. In the other place, because we are a joint committee of both houses. But nevertheless I will pass on his request, and I'm sure that the Committee can send a copy of the report to all relevant persons in Northern Ireland and thank him for his interest.
13:41
13:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Thank you very much for that introduction to the work. I have a particular concern, having met with the National Association of Contact Centres this week, about the ability for children in social care to continue to have supervised and appropriate contact with wider family members, particularly in a context in which we are going to want children to see more of their siblings, which everyone would would absolutely welcome. My concern is that contact centres have been closing at a huge rate, and whether that's something that we have tracking information on and whether it's something that we can look at using family hubs, perhaps as a location to resolve this.
13:41
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think my honourable friend makes a really good point. As I said, I welcome the amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act, which does give some assurance to those who are at risk of family separation through the care system. But the implementation will be the proof that is in the pudding. And I think, as she highlights there, a real practical barrier to that. I hope the minister has heard her point and will make sure that it is addressed as we seek to implement what that law now rightly puts on the statute book.
13:42
13:42
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I listened to my hon. Friend's report on the inquiry that they've carried out with great interest, and I wonder if he would share with me a call that the issue of looked after children who spend the vast majority of their life on inpatient wards in paediatric hospitals, and urge the minister. I see he's in his place today to perhaps look at this more widely.
There are a number of children, a very small number, who have spent the majority of their lives living in inpatient wards because they are ill. If they had a family, a traditional nuclear family, they would be at home and they would be cared for by their parents or their carers. But because they are looked after children, it's far too difficult to find a suitable placement for them because of their medical needs. I think this is a real fundamental lack of care in our society for some of our most vulnerable members, and I wonder if he would support my my call that this has looked at in greater depth.
There are a number of children, a very small number, who have spent the majority of their lives living in inpatient wards because they are ill. If they had a family, a traditional nuclear family, they would be at home and they would be cared for by their parents or their carers. But because they are looked after children, it's far too difficult to find a suitable placement for them because of their medical needs. I think this is a real fundamental lack of care in our society for some of our most vulnerable members, and I wonder if he would support my my call that this has looked at in greater depth.
13:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My honourable friend gives me the opportunity to also reference another report that that the Human Rights Committee has undertaken on Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Health Act. We looked very much at this issue, particularly of vulnerable young people being placed onto adult mental health wards and urge changes at that point, and I think it is absolutely something when you're dealing with vulnerable people who are care experienced, then also facing mental health crises, you've got that double vulnerability, and the duty of the state to those individuals is only heightened further.
I think some of the measures that we've suggested on reforming the rights for disabled children can absolutely play a part of that. I will also just highlight something I didn't get a chance to say, which is there are recommendations in the report about strengthening the complaints system, including making sure that for all young people who are care experienced, there is no wrong door when they are making a complaint and that all young people who are care experienced have an opt out right to a legal advocate.
That would, to my view, go some way to make sure that particularly children who are facing mental health crisis have an advocate in the in the way that is also envisaged, I know in the Mental Health Act. So I hope that if the government listens to some of the recommendations in the report, we can go some way to addressing the very real concerns that she's raised.
I think some of the measures that we've suggested on reforming the rights for disabled children can absolutely play a part of that. I will also just highlight something I didn't get a chance to say, which is there are recommendations in the report about strengthening the complaints system, including making sure that for all young people who are care experienced, there is no wrong door when they are making a complaint and that all young people who are care experienced have an opt out right to a legal advocate.
That would, to my view, go some way to make sure that particularly children who are facing mental health crisis have an advocate in the in the way that is also envisaged, I know in the Mental Health Act. So I hope that if the government listens to some of the recommendations in the report, we can go some way to addressing the very real concerns that she's raised.
13:44
13:44
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
apologies for not making it clearer. I just wanted to mention that in my constituents, Chelsea and Fulham, the care experienced young people who live in Fulham benefit from the fact that the council recognises care experienced as a protected characteristic, and that means council housing teams and schools and recruitment processes inside Hammersmith and Fulham must actively check that their decisions don't disadvantage care leavers, and they have to track outcomes and care leavers have the right to recourse. At the moment, this is just if councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham choose because they're a decent council to do this.
Is there an argument for pressing the government to make care experienced a protected characteristic in law?
Is there an argument for pressing the government to make care experienced a protected characteristic in law?
13:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank you for raising that point. It gives me an opportunity just to place on record. Again, my thanks to everyone who hosted us in Leeds and York, where we saw some fantastic work being done to support care experienced young people. I know that it's replicated in councils across the country, including, may I say, Bracknell Forest, whose children's social care services recently were rated outstanding by Ofsted. Got the got the local plug in there.
But I pay tribute to all of those working tirelessly to support children in the social care system and the the shortcomings I highlighted today in no way take away from the many, many people who have dedicated their their working careers to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. I think he makes a very interesting point. It is something we explored as part of this inquiry. I have to tell him that the responses we received on this point were mixed.
Some felt that that would be in some way singling them out when when in reality, what they were sort of hoping for and asking for was that they be treated no differently from from anyone else in terms of their, you know, their ability to leave, the fact that their care experienced behind as they enter into adult life and go forward with, with, you know, with their lives. Others felt that it would be beneficial. The evidence was mixed.
If I am remembering correctly, I think we we settled in the report on not having that as a recommendation. I will correct the record on that if I am wrong, but I think that was our our decision. But it was something we considered because it is something that is raised. And it is interesting to hear that on a local level. It's something that's worked well in in his local area. And I think that shows that some of the time these solutions should be, you know, locally based.
But I pay tribute to all of those working tirelessly to support children in the social care system and the the shortcomings I highlighted today in no way take away from the many, many people who have dedicated their their working careers to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. I think he makes a very interesting point. It is something we explored as part of this inquiry. I have to tell him that the responses we received on this point were mixed.
Some felt that that would be in some way singling them out when when in reality, what they were sort of hoping for and asking for was that they be treated no differently from from anyone else in terms of their, you know, their ability to leave, the fact that their care experienced behind as they enter into adult life and go forward with, with, you know, with their lives. Others felt that it would be beneficial. The evidence was mixed.
If I am remembering correctly, I think we we settled in the report on not having that as a recommendation. I will correct the record on that if I am wrong, but I think that was our our decision. But it was something we considered because it is something that is raised. And it is interesting to hear that on a local level. It's something that's worked well in in his local area. And I think that shows that some of the time these solutions should be, you know, locally based.
13:47
13:49
13:49
13:49
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Barker. It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship today. I beg to move that this House has considered vaccination rates in England, and I'm pleased to co-sponsor this debate alongside colleagues from the Health and Social Care Select Committee here as well. Today, it's very easy to forget, from the vantage point of the 21st century that around half of children used to die before the age of 15 from infection and disease. Thankfully, we now have vaccines with our routine vaccination schedule providing protection against 15 preventable infections across our lifetimes.
And for decades, our system was one of the best in the world. The childhood diseases that used to cause such suffering measles, polio, and others, they sound like things from history books. We all have memories, I'm sure, of our early school based vaccinations, our flu jabs at the winter period, the joy of the discovery of the Covid 19 vaccination and the hope that brought of a return to normality. So you might ask, why have this debate at all today? Well, despite this seemingly continued record of progress and innovation since 20 2012, our vaccination system has been sleepwalking into a crisis.
The percentage of eligible people vaccinated for most major vaccines has been falling year on year, dropping below the 95% coverage recommended by the W.h.o to prevent onward transmission in the community. And we have now undoubtedly hit a crisis point across England as a whole. The 95% target is not being met for any routine childhood vaccination programme and many adult vaccination programmes too. For example, in 2425, only 83.7% of five year olds in England had both doses of MMR, and in my own constituency, the figure is even lower at 74%.
We are now seeing measles outbreaks in our cities and shockingly, we have lost our measles elimination status nationally. Tragically, three children died so far this year from measles from a totally preventable illness. When questioned about these issues previously, the health committee officials assured us that actions were underway and the tide was turning well. The most recent vaccine stats released at the end of this August showed, unfortunately, a continued continued downward trend. The 6 in 1 dose, three coverage down Menb dose three coverage down.
Rotavirus dose two coverage down. Again, this is also a serious equalities issue, Miss Baker. Children who grow up unprotected are disproportionately those growing up in poverty and from ethnic minority communities, and the gap in vaccination status growing across the country. So how has this been allowed to happen in modern Britain? The 2023 vaccination strategy under the last government was intended to halt the decline, but it is clearly failing, with vaccination rates continuing to fall in the three years since the WHO target of 90% 95% coverage for all routine vaccination programmes was removed from NHS planning guidance in 2025 2026, with the Secretary of State at the time saying that if everything is a priority, then nothing is.
But the choice not to explicitly prioritise vaccinations is incredibly short sighted. My colleagues and I, on the Health and Social Care Committee, held a short inquiry into vaccination rates earlier this year and we were, to be frank, shocked by the apparent complacency of leading NHS officials. There was no understanding of why rates, when rates are hoped to return to WHO levels and if and when our elimination status will be reached. Again, there is no target.
This debate must be a call to arms to to prioritise rebuilding our vaccination system as a matter of utmost urgency to restore vaccination rates to 95% as soon as possible. Developing an effective vaccination system is not rocket science. Much of the existing strategy is relevant and is positive, but we must acknowledge we are off track. The debate about what is wrong tends to focus on two key issues access versus hesitancy.
The access argument focuses on systematic, practical barriers, making it harder for people to get vaccinated, like poor appointment availability and effective call and recall systems, a lack of data linkages, fragmented health systems. On this argument, recent coverage decline is a sign of a system under strain rather than a loss of confidence. Most patients and parents do trust vaccines. 85% of people polled by Ipsos in 2025 said that vaccines were safe, but they are busy, they are moving homes, they're switching GPS and they do not have endless times to navigate a confusing and increasingly fragmented NHS system.
The gap between MMR one and MMR two uptake is a stark evidence of this failure, with MMR coverage at five years at 91%. Yet MMR two only 83%. The loss of contact is a system failure. Missed appointments should be chased and families should retain close contact with trusted health professionals to guide them through the childhood vaccination schedule. I would gladly give way.
And for decades, our system was one of the best in the world. The childhood diseases that used to cause such suffering measles, polio, and others, they sound like things from history books. We all have memories, I'm sure, of our early school based vaccinations, our flu jabs at the winter period, the joy of the discovery of the Covid 19 vaccination and the hope that brought of a return to normality. So you might ask, why have this debate at all today? Well, despite this seemingly continued record of progress and innovation since 20 2012, our vaccination system has been sleepwalking into a crisis.
The percentage of eligible people vaccinated for most major vaccines has been falling year on year, dropping below the 95% coverage recommended by the W.h.o to prevent onward transmission in the community. And we have now undoubtedly hit a crisis point across England as a whole. The 95% target is not being met for any routine childhood vaccination programme and many adult vaccination programmes too. For example, in 2425, only 83.7% of five year olds in England had both doses of MMR, and in my own constituency, the figure is even lower at 74%.
We are now seeing measles outbreaks in our cities and shockingly, we have lost our measles elimination status nationally. Tragically, three children died so far this year from measles from a totally preventable illness. When questioned about these issues previously, the health committee officials assured us that actions were underway and the tide was turning well. The most recent vaccine stats released at the end of this August showed, unfortunately, a continued continued downward trend. The 6 in 1 dose, three coverage down Menb dose three coverage down.
Rotavirus dose two coverage down. Again, this is also a serious equalities issue, Miss Baker. Children who grow up unprotected are disproportionately those growing up in poverty and from ethnic minority communities, and the gap in vaccination status growing across the country. So how has this been allowed to happen in modern Britain? The 2023 vaccination strategy under the last government was intended to halt the decline, but it is clearly failing, with vaccination rates continuing to fall in the three years since the WHO target of 90% 95% coverage for all routine vaccination programmes was removed from NHS planning guidance in 2025 2026, with the Secretary of State at the time saying that if everything is a priority, then nothing is.
But the choice not to explicitly prioritise vaccinations is incredibly short sighted. My colleagues and I, on the Health and Social Care Committee, held a short inquiry into vaccination rates earlier this year and we were, to be frank, shocked by the apparent complacency of leading NHS officials. There was no understanding of why rates, when rates are hoped to return to WHO levels and if and when our elimination status will be reached. Again, there is no target.
This debate must be a call to arms to to prioritise rebuilding our vaccination system as a matter of utmost urgency to restore vaccination rates to 95% as soon as possible. Developing an effective vaccination system is not rocket science. Much of the existing strategy is relevant and is positive, but we must acknowledge we are off track. The debate about what is wrong tends to focus on two key issues access versus hesitancy.
The access argument focuses on systematic, practical barriers, making it harder for people to get vaccinated, like poor appointment availability and effective call and recall systems, a lack of data linkages, fragmented health systems. On this argument, recent coverage decline is a sign of a system under strain rather than a loss of confidence. Most patients and parents do trust vaccines. 85% of people polled by Ipsos in 2025 said that vaccines were safe, but they are busy, they are moving homes, they're switching GPS and they do not have endless times to navigate a confusing and increasingly fragmented NHS system.
The gap between MMR one and MMR two uptake is a stark evidence of this failure, with MMR coverage at five years at 91%. Yet MMR two only 83%. The loss of contact is a system failure. Missed appointments should be chased and families should retain close contact with trusted health professionals to guide them through the childhood vaccination schedule. I would gladly give way.
13:54
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And I very much thank my honourable friend for giving way, and he's making an excellent point. As part of our mini inquiry into vaccination rates, we found that quite often the issue where you do see rates declining or stalling is a lack of trust and a lack of ability to access either health trusted health professionals or indeed just access appointments themselves. Does does he agree that actually making vaccinations more available, but also advice from trusted health professionals, is absolutely key to reversing this worrying trend?
13:55
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Honourable friend, for that comment and commitment, I agree, and both issues are clearly intertwined and one cannot separate them, which I will come to very briefly. So every contact should count. Digital shared records should identify at the next GP appointment, the next pharmacy check in, the next health visit or hospital appointment where vaccines are missing. The system then enabled, encouraged and paid to act. We know, however, that this is currently not the case.
The hesitancy argument also focuses on the growing propensity and salience of misinformation around vaccines and the fall in trust in vaccines and health institutions more broadly. Numerically, this isn't the most important factor, as polling shows, but for the 15% of parents who do have concerns, it does matter. Evidence from Manchester University has shown that this factor is especially important for certain population groups. These barriers are, as my friend has just said, multifaceted. Poor trust and poor access go hand in hand as often.
The best way to build trust is through regular contact with trusted professionals that you know. To maximise vaccine coverage, we need a system that can reliably identify and locate every child or patient missing their vaccine, repeatedly invite them for appointments, make attending appointments as easy as possible and with clear lines of responsibilities when targets are missed. To do this effectively, the vaccine system needs adequate resourcing, accurate data, explicit accountability for meeting these targets. Currently, we have none of these.
I know the government has been acting. We are piloting health visits and community pharmacy delivery, although the rollout has been slow and it is unclear when national rollout will be possible. Parents are now being given access to their child's records through the NHS app, and work is underway to improve the consent process of vaccinating children in school and more, all of which is positive. But as a health committee, we were not convinced that this will be enough to restore our vaccination levels to WHO standards, and neither are officials who themselves are unable to commit to if and when levels will be restored.
So moving forward, what do we need? We need resourcing. Data I received through parliamentary questions showed that the proportion of NHS England's total budget spent on vaccination in 2020 324 was 0.51% of its budget, £852 million, and that felt that that had fallen from 0.655%, or 989,000,000 in 2223. So the very year the strategy was released, funding was cut. We also need to be honest about what improvement will cost. Vaccinating the last 10 or 15% of any population is not the same task as vaccination.
Vaccinating the first 80%, deprivation, language barriers, housing instability all of these families need more contact with clinicians. GPS simply do not have the resources they need to do the outreach necessary. We need not just to fund new medicines and drugs, but also to fund their rollout. We need we should be using lifetime parental consent to increase uptake of school age vaccinations and developing efficient, convenient and ongoing catch up opportunities within schools, shopping centres, nurseries and family hubs.
The school age Immunisation service should be operating a check and offer approach at every contact contact for the last 15%. We should be willing to to fund what actually works. Explicit payments to GPS for outreach programs to underserved communities, including funding for multiple contact attempts, cleaning data, and for non-responder tracking and incentives linked to real outcomes. We should be training healthcare professionals and community groups to have difficult conversations with confidence and making far better use of our community pharmacy network rooted in local areas.
We also need clear accountability. The buck has to stop somewhere locally and nationally, with clear leads for vaccinations at both levels. Since the Lansley reforms in 2012 and the austerity cuts subsequently that followed, lines of accountability have become blurred. From April 27th, Icbs will receive greater responsibility for commissioning vaccine programmes locally. But who is overseeing the national strategy? And that remains unclear. Who is requiring corrective action and when action is deemed necessary, is not clear.
The removal of national targets has clearly been a step backwards for the system. Health officials and clinicians tell us that it is not always clear who is actually responsible when vaccine rates fall in a given neighbourhood. At a delivery level, we need a new national action plan that sets out concrete steps that will be taken to return coverage to our targets on data. We do not have all the systems in place. We need to reliably tell us who has and hasn't been vaccinated.
Data challenges run right through the system, vaccines given in maternity settings or in community pharmacy settings or at school often fail to make their way back to the child's GP practice because the systems don't talk to each other, how can we expect call and recall strategies to work if clinicians don't reliably know which children need to be called? And lastly, on hesitancy, we do need to tackle misinformation. We do need to regulate it online. We do need to hold those peddlers of this harmful and potentially deadly misinformation to account.
Social media companies must also step up their game in bringing down anti-vax information and providing clear, evidence based health information instead. I know much of this isn't easy, but that is why. That is why it requires genuine commitment and prioritisation. So today I'd like to finish by thanking the Minister for coming today to listen and to respond, and by asking her in her response, to outline whether the government accepts the situation is unacceptable and that urgent action is needed, whether a clear timeline for meeting the Who targets can and should be agreed by the NHS.
And lastly, if we are to set a timeline, will a clear action plan be outlined to set us on the path back to 95% of all children being vaccinated, so that we can all see a welcome and vital return of our measles elimination status. So we can all ensure that every child is safe, that people of all ages get the vaccines they need. And once again, the UK is a global leader in vaccinations. Thank you. Okay.
The hesitancy argument also focuses on the growing propensity and salience of misinformation around vaccines and the fall in trust in vaccines and health institutions more broadly. Numerically, this isn't the most important factor, as polling shows, but for the 15% of parents who do have concerns, it does matter. Evidence from Manchester University has shown that this factor is especially important for certain population groups. These barriers are, as my friend has just said, multifaceted. Poor trust and poor access go hand in hand as often.
The best way to build trust is through regular contact with trusted professionals that you know. To maximise vaccine coverage, we need a system that can reliably identify and locate every child or patient missing their vaccine, repeatedly invite them for appointments, make attending appointments as easy as possible and with clear lines of responsibilities when targets are missed. To do this effectively, the vaccine system needs adequate resourcing, accurate data, explicit accountability for meeting these targets. Currently, we have none of these.
I know the government has been acting. We are piloting health visits and community pharmacy delivery, although the rollout has been slow and it is unclear when national rollout will be possible. Parents are now being given access to their child's records through the NHS app, and work is underway to improve the consent process of vaccinating children in school and more, all of which is positive. But as a health committee, we were not convinced that this will be enough to restore our vaccination levels to WHO standards, and neither are officials who themselves are unable to commit to if and when levels will be restored.
So moving forward, what do we need? We need resourcing. Data I received through parliamentary questions showed that the proportion of NHS England's total budget spent on vaccination in 2020 324 was 0.51% of its budget, £852 million, and that felt that that had fallen from 0.655%, or 989,000,000 in 2223. So the very year the strategy was released, funding was cut. We also need to be honest about what improvement will cost. Vaccinating the last 10 or 15% of any population is not the same task as vaccination.
Vaccinating the first 80%, deprivation, language barriers, housing instability all of these families need more contact with clinicians. GPS simply do not have the resources they need to do the outreach necessary. We need not just to fund new medicines and drugs, but also to fund their rollout. We need we should be using lifetime parental consent to increase uptake of school age vaccinations and developing efficient, convenient and ongoing catch up opportunities within schools, shopping centres, nurseries and family hubs.
The school age Immunisation service should be operating a check and offer approach at every contact contact for the last 15%. We should be willing to to fund what actually works. Explicit payments to GPS for outreach programs to underserved communities, including funding for multiple contact attempts, cleaning data, and for non-responder tracking and incentives linked to real outcomes. We should be training healthcare professionals and community groups to have difficult conversations with confidence and making far better use of our community pharmacy network rooted in local areas.
We also need clear accountability. The buck has to stop somewhere locally and nationally, with clear leads for vaccinations at both levels. Since the Lansley reforms in 2012 and the austerity cuts subsequently that followed, lines of accountability have become blurred. From April 27th, Icbs will receive greater responsibility for commissioning vaccine programmes locally. But who is overseeing the national strategy? And that remains unclear. Who is requiring corrective action and when action is deemed necessary, is not clear.
The removal of national targets has clearly been a step backwards for the system. Health officials and clinicians tell us that it is not always clear who is actually responsible when vaccine rates fall in a given neighbourhood. At a delivery level, we need a new national action plan that sets out concrete steps that will be taken to return coverage to our targets on data. We do not have all the systems in place. We need to reliably tell us who has and hasn't been vaccinated.
Data challenges run right through the system, vaccines given in maternity settings or in community pharmacy settings or at school often fail to make their way back to the child's GP practice because the systems don't talk to each other, how can we expect call and recall strategies to work if clinicians don't reliably know which children need to be called? And lastly, on hesitancy, we do need to tackle misinformation. We do need to regulate it online. We do need to hold those peddlers of this harmful and potentially deadly misinformation to account.
Social media companies must also step up their game in bringing down anti-vax information and providing clear, evidence based health information instead. I know much of this isn't easy, but that is why. That is why it requires genuine commitment and prioritisation. So today I'd like to finish by thanking the Minister for coming today to listen and to respond, and by asking her in her response, to outline whether the government accepts the situation is unacceptable and that urgent action is needed, whether a clear timeline for meeting the Who targets can and should be agreed by the NHS.
And lastly, if we are to set a timeline, will a clear action plan be outlined to set us on the path back to 95% of all children being vaccinated, so that we can all see a welcome and vital return of our measles elimination status. So we can all ensure that every child is safe, that people of all ages get the vaccines they need. And once again, the UK is a global leader in vaccinations. Thank you. Okay.
14:01
14:01
14:01
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
under your chairmanship on the second consecutive day. And can I thank the proposer, the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. He set out his case so well that I fear that my contribution will add very little to his. But nevertheless, I do want to add my voice in support of this very important topic. As he said, this issue of vaccination rates is of critical importance to public health. Even small drops in uptake dropping below the 95% World Health Organisation target, can erode the collective benefit of vaccination and create the potential for more outbreaks, such as those we have seen of measles in recent years.
Now, in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is based for all of the five main categories of early years vaccinations, we are below the target for four of the five. We're in the 85 to 90% range, and for the pre-school booster for tetanus, diphtheria and polio, we're in the 90 to 95% range. All of those figures are too low and really needs to be improved. Now, the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip set out very articulately the sort of coherent and integrated NHS and government plan we need to tackle.
I'm going to focus my remarks on some of the misinformation and disinformation issues that are out there, but certainly we need that proactive NHS and government plan, because spending on vaccination is a really good illustration of the principle that prevention is better than subsequent treatment and hospitalisation. And surely improving our vaccination rates is a really good way of helping to relieve pressure on other parts of the health service and saving money as a result of that upfront investment, as well as saving lives.
Now this is a vaccination is one of many areas of health where individual decisions can cause harm to a wider community. Now, of course, there will be plenty of of parents and people who might have concerns about vaccination, whether legitimate or because of things they've seen on social media. But as far as possible and this. We had a lot of these debates during the Covid pandemic. We must try to think not just of ourselves and our families, but of our neighbours, our friends, our work colleagues when making decisions about vaccination.
Now we know that mis and disinformation are both rising, made easier, alas, by social media, so sustained action is going to be needed to tackle that. We definitely need tougher regulation of social media companies. Perhaps we may need to introduce a verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional. I would like to see compulsory labelling and annotation of all posts made by people about vaccination and vaccines. We verified scientific facts by the relevant public health or national body.
We need to show leadership as politicians. Perhaps the government could consider taking the lead on a national campaign where we all show our support for vaccinations, maybe even sometimes when we when we take them. Of course, we as adults, we don't need them quite so often, but sometimes for certain travel, we might need it. I've. Occasionally, because of my love of walking in the Alps, had a tick borne encephalitis vaccine, something I've chosen to do in order to reduce the risk of infection from that disease.
We can all do a lot more and be symbols of, of, of progress and practicing what we preach, as many politicians do for blood donation, for example, perhaps it's something the new prime Minister could make one of his famous TikTok videos about, although of course he has a long list of topics to tackle. We can also engage with social media influencers who have that credibility on social media that perhaps those of us who are hopeless at it lack.
They can be ambassadors for vaccination as well. And as the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, we need community outreach programs. We need the health service properly supported because, as he said, this isn't yet another thing we can add to the long list of things we expect of GPS. We need to go to the people and reach those areas that perhaps don't have as much access or interaction with the health service as other communities.
We need to build that dialogue and trust. We need to create easy to access and visible vaccination opportunities, including perhaps at times of the day, convenient for those communities and not just convenient for health and medical organisations, Mrs. Barker. Only through teamwork and determined action can we avert us from our current path of falling vaccination rates. And if we don't, if we don't reverse that trend, we will, alas, see more illness and untimely, ultimately, death.
And I hope to hear from the minister as to what we can do to prevent that.
Now, in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is based for all of the five main categories of early years vaccinations, we are below the target for four of the five. We're in the 85 to 90% range, and for the pre-school booster for tetanus, diphtheria and polio, we're in the 90 to 95% range. All of those figures are too low and really needs to be improved. Now, the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip set out very articulately the sort of coherent and integrated NHS and government plan we need to tackle.
I'm going to focus my remarks on some of the misinformation and disinformation issues that are out there, but certainly we need that proactive NHS and government plan, because spending on vaccination is a really good illustration of the principle that prevention is better than subsequent treatment and hospitalisation. And surely improving our vaccination rates is a really good way of helping to relieve pressure on other parts of the health service and saving money as a result of that upfront investment, as well as saving lives.
Now this is a vaccination is one of many areas of health where individual decisions can cause harm to a wider community. Now, of course, there will be plenty of of parents and people who might have concerns about vaccination, whether legitimate or because of things they've seen on social media. But as far as possible and this. We had a lot of these debates during the Covid pandemic. We must try to think not just of ourselves and our families, but of our neighbours, our friends, our work colleagues when making decisions about vaccination.
Now we know that mis and disinformation are both rising, made easier, alas, by social media, so sustained action is going to be needed to tackle that. We definitely need tougher regulation of social media companies. Perhaps we may need to introduce a verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional. I would like to see compulsory labelling and annotation of all posts made by people about vaccination and vaccines. We verified scientific facts by the relevant public health or national body.
We need to show leadership as politicians. Perhaps the government could consider taking the lead on a national campaign where we all show our support for vaccinations, maybe even sometimes when we when we take them. Of course, we as adults, we don't need them quite so often, but sometimes for certain travel, we might need it. I've. Occasionally, because of my love of walking in the Alps, had a tick borne encephalitis vaccine, something I've chosen to do in order to reduce the risk of infection from that disease.
We can all do a lot more and be symbols of, of, of progress and practicing what we preach, as many politicians do for blood donation, for example, perhaps it's something the new prime Minister could make one of his famous TikTok videos about, although of course he has a long list of topics to tackle. We can also engage with social media influencers who have that credibility on social media that perhaps those of us who are hopeless at it lack.
They can be ambassadors for vaccination as well. And as the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, we need community outreach programs. We need the health service properly supported because, as he said, this isn't yet another thing we can add to the long list of things we expect of GPS. We need to go to the people and reach those areas that perhaps don't have as much access or interaction with the health service as other communities.
We need to build that dialogue and trust. We need to create easy to access and visible vaccination opportunities, including perhaps at times of the day, convenient for those communities and not just convenient for health and medical organisations, Mrs. Barker. Only through teamwork and determined action can we avert us from our current path of falling vaccination rates. And if we don't, if we don't reverse that trend, we will, alas, see more illness and untimely, ultimately, death.
And I hope to hear from the minister as to what we can do to prevent that.
14:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Do you need to impose a time limit of three minutes? Rachael Maskell, serve under your chairmanship. And I also thank the. Health and Social Care Select Committee for the work that they've done. It is a real privilege to be able to access vaccine programmes. It's the most effective public health intervention, and there are 15 vaccine preventable infections in which we can be inoculated against. Just this week, we're seeing the start of the winter fuel vaccination programme, and I really do urge all those watching this debate today to go and take up that opportunity to protect themselves and protect their community.
In York, take up is relatively, relatively high. However, we are not complacent. One particular challenge for us is the uptake not only of the M R vaccine, but the second Mr. R vaccine. I would really like to know what the government is doing to support initiatives to prove this. The second take up of this vaccine to make improvements. York's uptake is 86.2% against Yorkshire's 85%, or England average 83.8%.
But we know that the World Health Organisation sets that ambition at 95%, because that's the level of herd immunity and will keep our communities safe. And as a result of that, I do ask the minister also when that target will be reintroduced. It must be reintroduced because we know it is effective. Also, we know about lessons learned, how we can deliver this more effectively. And of course, we think back to Covid when many people were involved, communities were involved, schools were involved, faith and community groups were involved in getting the message out to people.
We need to be able to communicate better to our communities. In this day of information overload about the importance of vaccines, but also the delivery mechanism through which they can come needs to be expanded. And we've heard many of those examples here today for early years, thinking about health visitors, making those visits in family hubs, but also the schools programme, and then into places where people connect in workplaces and other places. But of course, what we need to ensure is that we have a system which is comprehensive, and I do call on the minister to look at the technology available to her to identify where those areas are, where there is low take up, and we know areas of deprivation, areas of concentration of ethnic minority groups who are more hesitant about taking up the vaccine.
I do ask that we have a proper comprehensive vaccine passport, which is able to be utilised by all clinicians delivering the vaccine programme, and I also ask her to look at the issue of hesitancy in the round. We know that a small number of children, parents and carers and adults are hesitant about taking up the the vaccine. Some of that is about information, but some of that is simply a fear of needles, too. Can we look at different delivery mechanisms for vaccines so people and communities are protected?
In York, take up is relatively, relatively high. However, we are not complacent. One particular challenge for us is the uptake not only of the M R vaccine, but the second Mr. R vaccine. I would really like to know what the government is doing to support initiatives to prove this. The second take up of this vaccine to make improvements. York's uptake is 86.2% against Yorkshire's 85%, or England average 83.8%.
But we know that the World Health Organisation sets that ambition at 95%, because that's the level of herd immunity and will keep our communities safe. And as a result of that, I do ask the minister also when that target will be reintroduced. It must be reintroduced because we know it is effective. Also, we know about lessons learned, how we can deliver this more effectively. And of course, we think back to Covid when many people were involved, communities were involved, schools were involved, faith and community groups were involved in getting the message out to people.
We need to be able to communicate better to our communities. In this day of information overload about the importance of vaccines, but also the delivery mechanism through which they can come needs to be expanded. And we've heard many of those examples here today for early years, thinking about health visitors, making those visits in family hubs, but also the schools programme, and then into places where people connect in workplaces and other places. But of course, what we need to ensure is that we have a system which is comprehensive, and I do call on the minister to look at the technology available to her to identify where those areas are, where there is low take up, and we know areas of deprivation, areas of concentration of ethnic minority groups who are more hesitant about taking up the vaccine.
I do ask that we have a proper comprehensive vaccine passport, which is able to be utilised by all clinicians delivering the vaccine programme, and I also ask her to look at the issue of hesitancy in the round. We know that a small number of children, parents and carers and adults are hesitant about taking up the the vaccine. Some of that is about information, but some of that is simply a fear of needles, too. Can we look at different delivery mechanisms for vaccines so people and communities are protected?
14:08
14:08
14:08
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for this very important debate. It seems every time I open my social media feed or emails, I'm trying to be sold some supplement or superfood to boost my immunity. And we know that the most effective way of boosting our immunity is by vaccination, and vaccines can achieve something even more extraordinary. They can actually eradicate diseases altogether from the face of the earth.
So during the 20th century alone, we lost hundreds of millions of people to smallpox until it was eradicated in 1977, a cattle disease of rinderpest wiped off the face of the earth by vaccination. The second disease to be removed from our planet. And polio is also on the brink of vaccination. And I was reminded of this recently I speaking at an event organised by Winchester Rotary about polio eradication. And it was organised by two of my constituents.
One is Gillian Russell and Professor Cordeaux said. And both of them contracted polio when they were children. And they both have lifelong disabilities. And as a result of that, and it's important to remind everyone that it's not just about the the deaths that are prevented, it's about preventing disability and ill health that can last a whole lifetime. And we also saw the power of vaccination during the Covid 19 pandemic a century earlier in the 1918 influenza outbreak, which killed 50 million people.
There were no flu vaccines, there's no antiviral treatment, and there are not even antibiotics to treat the secondary infections. And then during Covid, initially, we only had those same blunt sort of tools of isolation and restriction on gatherings to try and control that disease. And then the vaccine came out, and that has saved huge number of lives. And it gave us a route out of lockdown. And, you know, we got back to seeing our families socialising again, going back to work, running our businesses and just living our lives again.
But there's a danger that vaccines become a victim of their own success. We've become so unfamiliar with some of the diseases that we've forgotten how serious they really are. That's why falling childhood vaccination rates should particularly concern us. When politicians like Donald Trump or parties like reform when they platform anti-vaxxers, parents rightly become worried. They all want to do the best for their children. But when dangerous, provocative and downright false information is platformed, the truth is pushed further and further away from those who are looking for answers.
Because centuries ago, hospitals were filled with iron lungs for children of polio, graveyards were filled with children under five years old, and they were dying due to entirely preventable diseases. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical intervention in history. They're the closest thing we have to a safety blanket from disease, and we must not allow dangerous and divisive figures online or in politics to drive people away from science and evidence led , healthcare science produced solutions, answers and evidence.
But politicians, politicians and politics can determine whether they are trusted. Thank you.
So during the 20th century alone, we lost hundreds of millions of people to smallpox until it was eradicated in 1977, a cattle disease of rinderpest wiped off the face of the earth by vaccination. The second disease to be removed from our planet. And polio is also on the brink of vaccination. And I was reminded of this recently I speaking at an event organised by Winchester Rotary about polio eradication. And it was organised by two of my constituents.
One is Gillian Russell and Professor Cordeaux said. And both of them contracted polio when they were children. And they both have lifelong disabilities. And as a result of that, and it's important to remind everyone that it's not just about the the deaths that are prevented, it's about preventing disability and ill health that can last a whole lifetime. And we also saw the power of vaccination during the Covid 19 pandemic a century earlier in the 1918 influenza outbreak, which killed 50 million people.
There were no flu vaccines, there's no antiviral treatment, and there are not even antibiotics to treat the secondary infections. And then during Covid, initially, we only had those same blunt sort of tools of isolation and restriction on gatherings to try and control that disease. And then the vaccine came out, and that has saved huge number of lives. And it gave us a route out of lockdown. And, you know, we got back to seeing our families socialising again, going back to work, running our businesses and just living our lives again.
But there's a danger that vaccines become a victim of their own success. We've become so unfamiliar with some of the diseases that we've forgotten how serious they really are. That's why falling childhood vaccination rates should particularly concern us. When politicians like Donald Trump or parties like reform when they platform anti-vaxxers, parents rightly become worried. They all want to do the best for their children. But when dangerous, provocative and downright false information is platformed, the truth is pushed further and further away from those who are looking for answers.
Because centuries ago, hospitals were filled with iron lungs for children of polio, graveyards were filled with children under five years old, and they were dying due to entirely preventable diseases. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical intervention in history. They're the closest thing we have to a safety blanket from disease, and we must not allow dangerous and divisive figures online or in politics to drive people away from science and evidence led , healthcare science produced solutions, answers and evidence.
But politicians, politicians and politics can determine whether they are trusted. Thank you.
14:12
14:12
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd also like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and colleagues on the Health and Social Care Committee for securing this important debate. I am particularly concerned about the fall in childhood vaccination rates, which we heard something about, and what that means for disease like measles, which we had all but eliminated. Before I entered Parliament, I served as a councillor on the North West London Integrated Care Board, and because our figures were so poor, I pushed for north west London NHS to deliver MMR vaccinations through community pharmacies.
All families go there. It seems an obvious thing to do and I was told it was simply too complicated. I pushed a little bit. I got two pharmacies in a in a sort of project. It was a start, but it was nowhere near enough. So when I became a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I was delighted to have the opportunity to pursue this. We had, as I mentioned, we had NHS England and UK Health Security Agency officials in front of us in February with warning signs are already flashing red.
The UK had lost its measles elimination status. London had the lowest childhood vaccination coverage in the country, and children were being hospitalised from a disease that is entirely preventable. And what was extraordinary is I was strongly struck by the feeling of the that they gave off of a complete lack of urgency in how they saw the problem. I asked if anyone had assessed the cost to the NHS of Undervaccination. The answer was no.
I asked why a pharmacy MMR pilot across 43 sites in the. In the North West had not continued. I was told it had worked as a campaign, but making it routine was a different question, so I asked whether that question was even being assessed and it clearly wasn't. Sadly, since the committee's inquiry, the situation has got worse, not better. As my hon. Friend touched upon on the 17th of August, UK data shows that England recorded 970 laboratory confirmed measles cases this year alone.
Of those, 650 were children aged 14 or under and more than half of the cases were in London. Now, I'm not saying that pharmacies are a silver bullet. The. The committee also had arguments about strengthening school age immunisation services. But this shouldn't be either or. It should be schools and GPS and pharmacies. It should be every available route to help our children and their families. Now, officials told the committee that they don't want to use pharmacies for childhood vaccination because they still don't know if the evidence supports it.
So I asked the minister, surely the obvious answer to the question that they don't know if the evidence supports it is to get the evidence. What is the government doing to get the evidence that MMR? Will it get the evidence here? Will it commission a proper evaluation of using pharmacies for routine MMR vaccination with a clear deadline? Will she ensure that the NHS in short stops prevaricating and acts before more children pay the price?
All families go there. It seems an obvious thing to do and I was told it was simply too complicated. I pushed a little bit. I got two pharmacies in a in a sort of project. It was a start, but it was nowhere near enough. So when I became a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I was delighted to have the opportunity to pursue this. We had, as I mentioned, we had NHS England and UK Health Security Agency officials in front of us in February with warning signs are already flashing red.
The UK had lost its measles elimination status. London had the lowest childhood vaccination coverage in the country, and children were being hospitalised from a disease that is entirely preventable. And what was extraordinary is I was strongly struck by the feeling of the that they gave off of a complete lack of urgency in how they saw the problem. I asked if anyone had assessed the cost to the NHS of Undervaccination. The answer was no.
I asked why a pharmacy MMR pilot across 43 sites in the. In the North West had not continued. I was told it had worked as a campaign, but making it routine was a different question, so I asked whether that question was even being assessed and it clearly wasn't. Sadly, since the committee's inquiry, the situation has got worse, not better. As my hon. Friend touched upon on the 17th of August, UK data shows that England recorded 970 laboratory confirmed measles cases this year alone.
Of those, 650 were children aged 14 or under and more than half of the cases were in London. Now, I'm not saying that pharmacies are a silver bullet. The. The committee also had arguments about strengthening school age immunisation services. But this shouldn't be either or. It should be schools and GPS and pharmacies. It should be every available route to help our children and their families. Now, officials told the committee that they don't want to use pharmacies for childhood vaccination because they still don't know if the evidence supports it.
So I asked the minister, surely the obvious answer to the question that they don't know if the evidence supports it is to get the evidence. What is the government doing to get the evidence that MMR? Will it get the evidence here? Will it commission a proper evaluation of using pharmacies for routine MMR vaccination with a clear deadline? Will she ensure that the NHS in short stops prevaricating and acts before more children pay the price?
14:15
14:15
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Chair as always, a pleasure to serve on the chair. You're certainly earning your money today that you're here yesterday and back today to do more. Well done to you. Can I congratulate and thank the honourable gentleman for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for for introducing the the debate and for setting the scene incredibly well. As a Democratic Unionist Party spokesperson for health, I'm particularly interested in this topic and how this affects those in Northern Ireland.
It's good to see the Minister in her place again, and I wish her well in the role that she plays. I know that the answers that she will give us will encourage us, and that puts no pressure on the minister whatsoever, you know, but there we are. Vaccines have saved millions of lives protecting our children from serious illnesses and life changing complications. However, over the past decade, vaccination uptake across the United Kingdom has declined. In 2021, data showed that none of the routine childhood vaccinations had reached the World Health Organization's recommended 95% coverage target.
The trend reveals a significant risk to public health, which we have already seen with localized outbreaks of measles and whooping cough in areas across the United Kingdom. Research is also published in August, showed further falls in UK wide vaccine among children aged 12 months for rotavirus and men. B if the protection that vaccines are not done, then they can lead to serious illnesses including pneumonia, meningitis and other life threatening infections in Northern Ireland. Quick comment on Northern Ireland again and then three hours of the Minister at 24 months, coverage was above 84% for all reported vaccines in 2024.
The Department of Health warned that a measles outbreak was less likely, was likely less unless urgent action was taken to increase MMR uptake in Northern Ireland. And it comes down to the issue that new parents have have to have access to clear, accurate and reassuring information that addresses uncertainty, maintains confidence in the safety of these vaccines. However, there are. The biggest concern is the practical barriers after minister. Some of those things, particularly as research from the College of Paediatrics and Child Health, emphasizes that vaccines are.
Confidence remains generally high across the UK. While it is. Practical issues accessing vaccination services are far more likely to contribute to declining uptake for those who who. Barriers are facing largely by those living in deprived areas. As one example, those who live in rural areas who don't have access to transport. So my question to the minister, first of all, for those who want to get a better prevent it from getting up because of transport, can the minister give us an answer? And would the Minister also, in relation to the vaccination uptake in Northern Ireland, would the Minister have those discussions with the relevant Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly? And thirdly, getting correct messaging across social media and into schools in Non-condescending approach? And fourthly, vaccination is in all our best interests, but the approach of education must be the way forward and not as thick as it is not a stick to beat parents who believe they are doing their best for their children.
Thanks so much.
It's good to see the Minister in her place again, and I wish her well in the role that she plays. I know that the answers that she will give us will encourage us, and that puts no pressure on the minister whatsoever, you know, but there we are. Vaccines have saved millions of lives protecting our children from serious illnesses and life changing complications. However, over the past decade, vaccination uptake across the United Kingdom has declined. In 2021, data showed that none of the routine childhood vaccinations had reached the World Health Organization's recommended 95% coverage target.
The trend reveals a significant risk to public health, which we have already seen with localized outbreaks of measles and whooping cough in areas across the United Kingdom. Research is also published in August, showed further falls in UK wide vaccine among children aged 12 months for rotavirus and men. B if the protection that vaccines are not done, then they can lead to serious illnesses including pneumonia, meningitis and other life threatening infections in Northern Ireland. Quick comment on Northern Ireland again and then three hours of the Minister at 24 months, coverage was above 84% for all reported vaccines in 2024.
The Department of Health warned that a measles outbreak was less likely, was likely less unless urgent action was taken to increase MMR uptake in Northern Ireland. And it comes down to the issue that new parents have have to have access to clear, accurate and reassuring information that addresses uncertainty, maintains confidence in the safety of these vaccines. However, there are. The biggest concern is the practical barriers after minister. Some of those things, particularly as research from the College of Paediatrics and Child Health, emphasizes that vaccines are.
Confidence remains generally high across the UK. While it is. Practical issues accessing vaccination services are far more likely to contribute to declining uptake for those who who. Barriers are facing largely by those living in deprived areas. As one example, those who live in rural areas who don't have access to transport. So my question to the minister, first of all, for those who want to get a better prevent it from getting up because of transport, can the minister give us an answer? And would the Minister also, in relation to the vaccination uptake in Northern Ireland, would the Minister have those discussions with the relevant Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly? And thirdly, getting correct messaging across social media and into schools in Non-condescending approach? And fourthly, vaccination is in all our best interests, but the approach of education must be the way forward and not as thick as it is not a stick to beat parents who believe they are doing their best for their children.
Thanks so much.
14:18
14:18
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. I thank the members of the Select Committee for Health and Social Care for bringing this debate. So doctors like me don't need any convincing about vaccination, but some of our political opponents don't agree. It's incredible to think that at the reform conference last year, a platform was given claiming that vaccinations had caused cancer in the royal family and that the head of the United States Health Department is a similar vaccine skeptic.
This is quite pernicious and wrong. Very, very wrong. So doctors like me don't need convincing, nor wives like mine who are rhesus negative and whose mother had multiple miscarriages before the discovery of anti-d vaccination to prevent baby loss. Tested first in the famous Sing Sing prison experiments. Now, when I was young, every county had a school for the deaf, but by the time I was a senior ENT surgeon, they'd all closed.
Now why was that? Maternal rubella? German measles in pregnancy had been abolished by simply vaccinating all girls at puberty. Just like that. Brilliant. No need for so many schools for the deaf. A landmark 2026 Lancet study reported no cervical cancer deaths among women aged 20 to 24 between 2020 and 2024, a dramatic drop from the previous five year directly credited to the national HPV vaccination programme.
And we will see the same fall in deaths from oropharyngeal throat cancer in boys as a result of HPV vaccination. Now, we all know that the national response to the pandemic was not a glorious one. PPE and test and trace were costly errors, but the one thing that we did get right was vaccination, saving countless lives. And I recall myself vaccinating the first very elderly patients at Great Yarmouth. Now, just lately, we see reports of increased life expectancy in patients with malignant melanoma with personalized cancer vaccines.
Brilliant. So doctors like me, unlike some politicians, need no convincing of the crucial importance of vaccination. But there must be a warning here, for we are short of clinical academics who lead medical education and research, and we need to incubate the next generation of scientists who will lead these discoveries. For this is the country of Jenner who discovered vaccination. Lister, who discovered Antisepsis and Fleming, who discovered penicillin.
We have a great legacy. We must secure a great future.
This is quite pernicious and wrong. Very, very wrong. So doctors like me don't need convincing, nor wives like mine who are rhesus negative and whose mother had multiple miscarriages before the discovery of anti-d vaccination to prevent baby loss. Tested first in the famous Sing Sing prison experiments. Now, when I was young, every county had a school for the deaf, but by the time I was a senior ENT surgeon, they'd all closed.
Now why was that? Maternal rubella? German measles in pregnancy had been abolished by simply vaccinating all girls at puberty. Just like that. Brilliant. No need for so many schools for the deaf. A landmark 2026 Lancet study reported no cervical cancer deaths among women aged 20 to 24 between 2020 and 2024, a dramatic drop from the previous five year directly credited to the national HPV vaccination programme.
And we will see the same fall in deaths from oropharyngeal throat cancer in boys as a result of HPV vaccination. Now, we all know that the national response to the pandemic was not a glorious one. PPE and test and trace were costly errors, but the one thing that we did get right was vaccination, saving countless lives. And I recall myself vaccinating the first very elderly patients at Great Yarmouth. Now, just lately, we see reports of increased life expectancy in patients with malignant melanoma with personalized cancer vaccines.
Brilliant. So doctors like me, unlike some politicians, need no convincing of the crucial importance of vaccination. But there must be a warning here, for we are short of clinical academics who lead medical education and research, and we need to incubate the next generation of scientists who will lead these discoveries. For this is the country of Jenner who discovered vaccination. Lister, who discovered Antisepsis and Fleming, who discovered penicillin.
We have a great legacy. We must secure a great future.
14:20
14:20
14:21
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank my hon. Friend the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for raising this important debate. Over the last 15 years, childhood vaccination rates have fallen across Britain, and the uptake for vaccinations for under five year olds is well below the World Health Organization's target of 95%. And the paradox of vaccination, of course, is that it becomes a victim of its own success. It's protected us so effectively for so long that we can forget what it saved us from.
My grandma's friend died at the age of 12 from diphtheria. When I worked in public health, I met a lady whose mum had rubella during pregnancy and she had serious impairments as a result of that. Now, online misinformation is often put forward as the root driver of our falling vaccination rates, and it's certainly true that false claims are dangerously contagious. But any explanation that focuses only on anti-vaxxers and the often monetised peddlers of mis and disinformation risks mistaking the loudest part of the problem for the largest part of the problem, because most parents who miss vaccinations are simply exhausted or overstretched or unable to get an appointment that fits around their lives.
Anyone who's experienced the first few months of a baby's life knows exactly what it's like. But at any time of life, when clinics require long journeys on public transport or time off work, missed vaccination is more often due to practical barriers than any ideological opposition. So whilst vaccination in this country might be free, accessing it is not always without cost. So how do we fix it? Firstly, we need to rebuild health, visiting and early years services, as well as rebuilding those links between families and GPS.
Because vaccination rates are highest when people have access to trusted professionals who they see regularly. And I certainly know that health visiting is in a lot worse place than when I had my first child. Now, the investment this Labour government is putting into our health services should address this. But I was really interested to hear my hon. Friend from Uxbridge and South Ruislip talk about the fragmented and confusing pathways which I think are still there, and also his concrete suggested actions.
And I'd really like to hear the Minister's response to those as well. And finally, I don't want us to forget the role of poverty in uptake of vaccination rates and deprivation when someone's worried about making the rent, topping up the electric meter or putting food on the table, that routine health admin can just fall down the list and all the action we are taking on child poverty through the child poverty strategy, lifting two child benefit, limit free breakfast clubs, all that sort of stuff really will have a good impact.
And I'm going to use my final seconds, Miss Barker to pay tribute to an absolute vaccine legend. Dolly Parton gave £1 million to the Moderna vaccine development. But not only that, she did so much to encourage the uptake of that Covid vaccine, and I think we'll all miss her. Thank you.
My grandma's friend died at the age of 12 from diphtheria. When I worked in public health, I met a lady whose mum had rubella during pregnancy and she had serious impairments as a result of that. Now, online misinformation is often put forward as the root driver of our falling vaccination rates, and it's certainly true that false claims are dangerously contagious. But any explanation that focuses only on anti-vaxxers and the often monetised peddlers of mis and disinformation risks mistaking the loudest part of the problem for the largest part of the problem, because most parents who miss vaccinations are simply exhausted or overstretched or unable to get an appointment that fits around their lives.
Anyone who's experienced the first few months of a baby's life knows exactly what it's like. But at any time of life, when clinics require long journeys on public transport or time off work, missed vaccination is more often due to practical barriers than any ideological opposition. So whilst vaccination in this country might be free, accessing it is not always without cost. So how do we fix it? Firstly, we need to rebuild health, visiting and early years services, as well as rebuilding those links between families and GPS.
Because vaccination rates are highest when people have access to trusted professionals who they see regularly. And I certainly know that health visiting is in a lot worse place than when I had my first child. Now, the investment this Labour government is putting into our health services should address this. But I was really interested to hear my hon. Friend from Uxbridge and South Ruislip talk about the fragmented and confusing pathways which I think are still there, and also his concrete suggested actions.
And I'd really like to hear the Minister's response to those as well. And finally, I don't want us to forget the role of poverty in uptake of vaccination rates and deprivation when someone's worried about making the rent, topping up the electric meter or putting food on the table, that routine health admin can just fall down the list and all the action we are taking on child poverty through the child poverty strategy, lifting two child benefit, limit free breakfast clubs, all that sort of stuff really will have a good impact.
And I'm going to use my final seconds, Miss Barker to pay tribute to an absolute vaccine legend. Dolly Parton gave £1 million to the Moderna vaccine development. But not only that, she did so much to encourage the uptake of that Covid vaccine, and I think we'll all miss her. Thank you.
14:23
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you very much. Mr. pleasure to speak to you in the chair today. And I, too, thank the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for leading this debate. As the parent of two children who had plenty of vaccinations, one of whom took it in her stride, and the other who made the biggest drama in the history of medicine. I can appreciate why so many parents approach this with some trepidation. Before this debate, my team and I spoke to staff working in the Cannock North Primary Care Network, which covers seven practices in the most deprived part of my constituency, about their efforts to improve lagging vaccination rates.
They told me that rates are quite good for young babies, but start to fall off as children get older, so they're looking at how they can step in. Earlier, they've produced plain and simple leaflets which explain the symptoms a child might experience if they aren't vaccinated. Staff will still hear parents say, well, I wasn't vaccinated against it, or I've never even heard of polio. So they're tackling the false assumption that choosing not to vaccinate is safe.
They're also looking at a simple sticker system for the red book as a quick visual reminder of the schedule. Relationships with help health practitioners can also be vital. As we heard, the PCN suggested that trained health visitors could provide early immunisation, something that I know is being trialled in other parts of England. The more hurdles we can remove, the better. That brings me to neighborhood health centres where services could be joined up and accessible.
I agree with the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent, ICB and NHS Property Services that Cannock and Rugeley would both be prime spots for centres, but we know that vaccination programmes that are delivered strictly strictly through GP practices see uptake in deprived areas. That's up to 27% lower, whereas accessible pharmacy and community enabled programmes narrow that gap to as little as 7%. But the lesson I took from speaking to the PCN team is that improving vaccination rates doesn't necessarily require one huge intervention.
Finally, I would like to finish by raising an issue on funding with the minister. Since funding for childhood aims moved to the Quality and Outcomes framework, practices only receive the funding if they meet the target of 96% in a deprived area with a significant traveller community like Chadsmoor, that can be incredibly difficult. Practices can spend significant time and money contacting families, but still find themselves falling well short. A practice could move from, say, 70% to 80% after a huge effort, but still receive no funding.
So I'd ask the minister whether he could recognise progress in closing health inequalities rather than just rewarding in-built advantage. Clearly, the route to achieving high vaccination rates will look a bit different in every community. Practices I've spoken to are doing brilliant work despite funding disadvantages, and I wonder if we could see outstanding outcomes in Cannock Chase and right across the country if we put rocket boosters under the innovation that we already see right across primary care. Thank you.
They told me that rates are quite good for young babies, but start to fall off as children get older, so they're looking at how they can step in. Earlier, they've produced plain and simple leaflets which explain the symptoms a child might experience if they aren't vaccinated. Staff will still hear parents say, well, I wasn't vaccinated against it, or I've never even heard of polio. So they're tackling the false assumption that choosing not to vaccinate is safe.
They're also looking at a simple sticker system for the red book as a quick visual reminder of the schedule. Relationships with help health practitioners can also be vital. As we heard, the PCN suggested that trained health visitors could provide early immunisation, something that I know is being trialled in other parts of England. The more hurdles we can remove, the better. That brings me to neighborhood health centres where services could be joined up and accessible.
I agree with the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent, ICB and NHS Property Services that Cannock and Rugeley would both be prime spots for centres, but we know that vaccination programmes that are delivered strictly strictly through GP practices see uptake in deprived areas. That's up to 27% lower, whereas accessible pharmacy and community enabled programmes narrow that gap to as little as 7%. But the lesson I took from speaking to the PCN team is that improving vaccination rates doesn't necessarily require one huge intervention.
Finally, I would like to finish by raising an issue on funding with the minister. Since funding for childhood aims moved to the Quality and Outcomes framework, practices only receive the funding if they meet the target of 96% in a deprived area with a significant traveller community like Chadsmoor, that can be incredibly difficult. Practices can spend significant time and money contacting families, but still find themselves falling well short. A practice could move from, say, 70% to 80% after a huge effort, but still receive no funding.
So I'd ask the minister whether he could recognise progress in closing health inequalities rather than just rewarding in-built advantage. Clearly, the route to achieving high vaccination rates will look a bit different in every community. Practices I've spoken to are doing brilliant work despite funding disadvantages, and I wonder if we could see outstanding outcomes in Cannock Chase and right across the country if we put rocket boosters under the innovation that we already see right across primary care. Thank you.
14:26
14:26
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It's a pleasure to serve under your Chairship again, and I'd like to thank the members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Oxford West and Abingdon, and for Worthing West for securing this debate on such an important issue. I am going to attempt to talk about three different vaccinations in less than three minutes. But before I do that, I would like to say a huge thank you to Congleton Rotary, who recently raised over £1,000 towards polio vaccination.
It's such an important topic. So to pick up on measles first, it's completely unacceptable that this year the UK lost its measles free status. We know that it can be a devastating disease for anyone who is unvaccinated, but is especially dangerous for babies, young people and pregnant women, and anyone with weakened immune systems. We have been relying on herd immunity for a very long time, and we no longer have the percentage of required in order to have that herd immunity.
At the last major outbreak in central and eastern Cheshire, nearly a quarter of the cases of measles were in under one year olds. Our babies are dependent on all of the rest of us having vaccinations, because otherwise they're profoundly vulnerable. We must work to get that right back up again. Only 90% of children in Cheshire East had received both doses of the MMR vaccine by their fifth birthday. We must work harder on this, and I would welcome any progress that the government can bring on this, including addressing the legacy of missed appointments during the Covid pandemic.
The second answer sorry. The second vaccination that I want to talk about is cervical cancer. 3300 women a year are still being diagnosed despite the the take up amongst younger women of the HPV, and around 680 women a year are losing their lives to this disease. The recent study, also mentioned by my honourable friend, appears to have reduced the risk of cervical cancer death before the age of 30 to effectively zero. The HPV vaccine is amazing.
Our goal as a government is to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, which would be fantastic. And we have a 90% target of vaccination rate for girls in Cheshire East. The the actual target, sorry, the actual numbers at the moment are 77.4% of girls, but only 72% of boys. For some reason we don't have a target for boys, but boys are also vulnerable to gynaecological , sorry, the equivalent cancers and they absolutely need and deserve the same protection as girls.
So why are we not making sure that they are also receiving these targets? And Lady Garden Foundation research found that over 45% of eligible girls who miss their school HPV vaccination did so because a consent form was not returned. Active parental refusal apparently accounts for just 12% of the the failure rate. So for me as a parent, a lifetime consent, I don't want it to be forced on anybody, of course, but a lifetime consent would just make life incredibly so much easier.
Why am I being asked every single time? Unless a child's health status has changed, there's really no reason why they you would want to withdraw vaccination consent. So I really believe we could be making this much easier. Lastly, on flu, we have so many people in hospital every year in Cheshire, and I would just remind everybody the importance of vaccinating children against flu to protect them, but also their elderly relatives over Christmas. Thank you ever so much to the minister and the select committee, and I do hope we can move this forward.
It's such an important topic. So to pick up on measles first, it's completely unacceptable that this year the UK lost its measles free status. We know that it can be a devastating disease for anyone who is unvaccinated, but is especially dangerous for babies, young people and pregnant women, and anyone with weakened immune systems. We have been relying on herd immunity for a very long time, and we no longer have the percentage of required in order to have that herd immunity.
At the last major outbreak in central and eastern Cheshire, nearly a quarter of the cases of measles were in under one year olds. Our babies are dependent on all of the rest of us having vaccinations, because otherwise they're profoundly vulnerable. We must work to get that right back up again. Only 90% of children in Cheshire East had received both doses of the MMR vaccine by their fifth birthday. We must work harder on this, and I would welcome any progress that the government can bring on this, including addressing the legacy of missed appointments during the Covid pandemic.
The second answer sorry. The second vaccination that I want to talk about is cervical cancer. 3300 women a year are still being diagnosed despite the the take up amongst younger women of the HPV, and around 680 women a year are losing their lives to this disease. The recent study, also mentioned by my honourable friend, appears to have reduced the risk of cervical cancer death before the age of 30 to effectively zero. The HPV vaccine is amazing.
Our goal as a government is to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, which would be fantastic. And we have a 90% target of vaccination rate for girls in Cheshire East. The the actual target, sorry, the actual numbers at the moment are 77.4% of girls, but only 72% of boys. For some reason we don't have a target for boys, but boys are also vulnerable to gynaecological , sorry, the equivalent cancers and they absolutely need and deserve the same protection as girls.
So why are we not making sure that they are also receiving these targets? And Lady Garden Foundation research found that over 45% of eligible girls who miss their school HPV vaccination did so because a consent form was not returned. Active parental refusal apparently accounts for just 12% of the the failure rate. So for me as a parent, a lifetime consent, I don't want it to be forced on anybody, of course, but a lifetime consent would just make life incredibly so much easier.
Why am I being asked every single time? Unless a child's health status has changed, there's really no reason why they you would want to withdraw vaccination consent. So I really believe we could be making this much easier. Lastly, on flu, we have so many people in hospital every year in Cheshire, and I would just remind everybody the importance of vaccinating children against flu to protect them, but also their elderly relatives over Christmas. Thank you ever so much to the minister and the select committee, and I do hope we can move this forward.
14:30
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Alex Meyer. And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Over the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Kingsbury Court surgery to find out about their big push on childhood vaccination. And I met Doctor Abdullah Khan and he told me, as we've heard today, that like others, he's really worried because of the return of measles, which he thought created a really urgent need for action. He saw the outbreak in Enfield as a real warning shot and talked to me about the UK losing its w.h.o measles elimination status, and he told me that his surgery had decided that they needed a new approach, which is fairly similar to what we've heard today, but all built around confidence and convenience.
And I was introduced to the senior nurse there, Elena Costache, and she showed me a display that she'd made, which rebuts some of the myths that parents are seeing online. And she also explained how they go online as well to dispel some of these myths in the comments that they get in on their own GP surgery page and doing it respectfully but directly, and also always in plain English. And I mean everything that they told me was very useful and informative, though I have to say one bit did make me feel rather ancient, because they said that one of the issues that they had was so many of the parents seem to think that measles and mumps and things like that were from long, long, long ago.
And I've certainly still got a childhood book which is called Alex's Mumps Book, where I had lots of fun activities to do while I was a bit under the weather. They also talked to me about convenience, about the way that staff go into nurseries, into children's centres, to creches and all the active outreach that they do. And the crucial point of following up again and again and again on those missed appointments. And all this is working.
They're doing about 140 vaccinations a month. And importantly, over the last year, they've got their vaccination, childhood vaccination rates up by 9%, which is fantastic, though they still plan to go further. Still, one specific issue they did raise with me is keeping up with vaccinations. In an area where there's an awful lot of new build housing, and I wondered if the minister could specifically comment on any particular measures that the government is taking to ensure that people can stay up to date with their vaccinations during the upheaval of a House move? And I also hope that the minister can join with me in congratulating Kingsbury Court GP surgery on what I think is a job well done.
And I was introduced to the senior nurse there, Elena Costache, and she showed me a display that she'd made, which rebuts some of the myths that parents are seeing online. And she also explained how they go online as well to dispel some of these myths in the comments that they get in on their own GP surgery page and doing it respectfully but directly, and also always in plain English. And I mean everything that they told me was very useful and informative, though I have to say one bit did make me feel rather ancient, because they said that one of the issues that they had was so many of the parents seem to think that measles and mumps and things like that were from long, long, long ago.
And I've certainly still got a childhood book which is called Alex's Mumps Book, where I had lots of fun activities to do while I was a bit under the weather. They also talked to me about convenience, about the way that staff go into nurseries, into children's centres, to creches and all the active outreach that they do. And the crucial point of following up again and again and again on those missed appointments. And all this is working.
They're doing about 140 vaccinations a month. And importantly, over the last year, they've got their vaccination, childhood vaccination rates up by 9%, which is fantastic, though they still plan to go further. Still, one specific issue they did raise with me is keeping up with vaccinations. In an area where there's an awful lot of new build housing, and I wondered if the minister could specifically comment on any particular measures that the government is taking to ensure that people can stay up to date with their vaccinations during the upheaval of a House move? And I also hope that the minister can join with me in congratulating Kingsbury Court GP surgery on what I think is a job well done.
14:32
14:33
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
This is an incredibly important debate. It is also very timely debate. The latest UK data, published on Tuesday, underlined how vaccine rates have continued to decline. It is also shows that uptake of the meningitis B booster for children aged two fell slightly last year. I find this especially alarming given the meningitis outbreak we saw in Kent earlier this year. There were 21 confirmed cases which tragically included the deaths of two young people.
A number of schools across East Kent also recorded confirmed cases, including one in my constituency of Ashford. I'm grateful for the coordinated action led by various agencies. Their swift response helped ensure that clear public health advice was communicated and that vaccination programmes could be rapidly rolled out. While I warmly welcome this action, at the time of the outbreak, I joined parliamentary colleagues from across the House in calling for more to be done.
I was therefore pleased that during the summer, the UK, HSA and NHS England introduced a one off national
A number of schools across East Kent also recorded confirmed cases, including one in my constituency of Ashford. I'm grateful for the coordinated action led by various agencies. Their swift response helped ensure that clear public health advice was communicated and that vaccination programmes could be rapidly rolled out. While I warmly welcome this action, at the time of the outbreak, I joined parliamentary colleagues from across the House in calling for more to be done.
I was therefore pleased that during the summer, the UK, HSA and NHS England introduced a one off national
14:34
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Step one of National Meningitis B vaccination programme to protect young people at the highest risk before the start of the new academic year, when meningitis B cases typically rise. The Jcvi also published a number of recommendations on routine meningitis B programme for adolescents before the summer recess. The government was those recommendations. So can I ask whether my honourable friend the Minister, can provide an update on those considerations? The meningitis outbreak in Kent should serve as a warning of the serious consequences when vaccine preventable diseases regain ground.
As the chair of the Appg on tuberculosis, I would also point out to the rising rates of TB in the UK and the fact that TB meningitis is one of the most severe forms of TB, particularly in young children. The BCG vaccination vaccine protects against TB, particularly serious forms of the infection such as TB meningitis. However, the latest data from the UK show that in the first quarter of the year, almost 1 in 5 children eligible to receive BCG vaccine did not do so.
Vaccinations remain an important part of preventing severe childhood TB alongside early diagnosis and treatment. However, the BCG vaccine is over 100 years old and does not provide reliable protection against pulmonary TB in adults. I would therefore stress the need for continued investment in the research and development of new, more effective TB vaccines. This is particularly important given the country's role in global tuberculosis research and development. I heard from my honourable friend talking about a reform party using their conference stage to talk about anti vaccinations programme.
We have a duty to base our discussions on vaccinations, on facts and evidence. As politicians, we have a particular responsibility to promote clear, evidence based information and avoid contributing to uncertainty and mistrust.
As the chair of the Appg on tuberculosis, I would also point out to the rising rates of TB in the UK and the fact that TB meningitis is one of the most severe forms of TB, particularly in young children. The BCG vaccination vaccine protects against TB, particularly serious forms of the infection such as TB meningitis. However, the latest data from the UK show that in the first quarter of the year, almost 1 in 5 children eligible to receive BCG vaccine did not do so.
Vaccinations remain an important part of preventing severe childhood TB alongside early diagnosis and treatment. However, the BCG vaccine is over 100 years old and does not provide reliable protection against pulmonary TB in adults. I would therefore stress the need for continued investment in the research and development of new, more effective TB vaccines. This is particularly important given the country's role in global tuberculosis research and development. I heard from my honourable friend talking about a reform party using their conference stage to talk about anti vaccinations programme.
We have a duty to base our discussions on vaccinations, on facts and evidence. As politicians, we have a particular responsibility to promote clear, evidence based information and avoid contributing to uncertainty and mistrust.
14:36
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Miss Barker. It's an honour to serve under you. I'd like to thank my committee colleagues for bringing forward this debate. One of the things we learned during the pandemic was just how much we all rely on each other, and vaccines were a huge part of helping us get back to seeing our families and take part in our communities. But we got through that period because we recognised that looking after each other meant looking after ourselves.
But at the same time, we saw a growth of misinformation online. Many of us spent more time online during the pandemic, and too often, social media algorithms push people towards content that reinforces fear rather than answers questions. And there's a fundamental problem with misinformation, which is that science is evolving and lives in the grey area, whereas it's much easier to be wrong with certainty. Diseases that once killed and disabled, huge swathes of our population have been brought under control because of generations of vaccines.
This is something that we should never take for granted. Vaccines don't cause autism, they cause healthy children. And yet we're seeing a worrying decline in the uptake of vaccines, which is the reason for this debate. In England, less than 84% of children have received both doses of the MMR vaccine vaccine, well below the 95% target, which gives us the best protection. And the consequences aren't theoretical. We're experiencing them now, and the growth of misinformation and the anti-vaxxer movement puts children's lives at risk.
The majority of measles cases from the start of this year, 61% have been children under ten. Most of these children were unvaccinated. And tragically, we've seen two children died of a preventable disease for which there was a safe and effective vaccine. That's two families suffering an unimaginable loss. And the irony with vaccines is that the lives saved never make the headlines. The children who don't get sick, the hospital, hospital admissions we don't have, and the families who never experienced that terrible loss will never know that it was vaccines that spared them for that.
And that's the core of this debate. It's about trust and responsibility. The government has a responsibility to champion the benefits of vaccine and set out a clear path to 95%, and we have a responsibility to take up those vaccines and to do that. But the government must act. And if the social media companies don't, don't, don't, don't stop this harmful content, we must act to make sure that they do. So. I thank once again, my fellow Health and Social Care select committees for bringing forward this debate, but we need to make sure we've got a clear plan and clear action so that we can solve this problem.
But at the same time, we saw a growth of misinformation online. Many of us spent more time online during the pandemic, and too often, social media algorithms push people towards content that reinforces fear rather than answers questions. And there's a fundamental problem with misinformation, which is that science is evolving and lives in the grey area, whereas it's much easier to be wrong with certainty. Diseases that once killed and disabled, huge swathes of our population have been brought under control because of generations of vaccines.
This is something that we should never take for granted. Vaccines don't cause autism, they cause healthy children. And yet we're seeing a worrying decline in the uptake of vaccines, which is the reason for this debate. In England, less than 84% of children have received both doses of the MMR vaccine vaccine, well below the 95% target, which gives us the best protection. And the consequences aren't theoretical. We're experiencing them now, and the growth of misinformation and the anti-vaxxer movement puts children's lives at risk.
The majority of measles cases from the start of this year, 61% have been children under ten. Most of these children were unvaccinated. And tragically, we've seen two children died of a preventable disease for which there was a safe and effective vaccine. That's two families suffering an unimaginable loss. And the irony with vaccines is that the lives saved never make the headlines. The children who don't get sick, the hospital, hospital admissions we don't have, and the families who never experienced that terrible loss will never know that it was vaccines that spared them for that.
And that's the core of this debate. It's about trust and responsibility. The government has a responsibility to champion the benefits of vaccine and set out a clear path to 95%, and we have a responsibility to take up those vaccines and to do that. But the government must act. And if the social media companies don't, don't, don't, don't stop this harmful content, we must act to make sure that they do. So. I thank once again, my fellow Health and Social Care select committees for bringing forward this debate, but we need to make sure we've got a clear plan and clear action so that we can solve this problem.
14:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Lib dem spokesperson Alison Bennett. Thank you, Miss Barker. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, and I'd like to commend the honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for setting out the work that the Select Committee has done, and for all members of the Health and Social Care Select Committee for looking into this really vital issue, because not so long ago, hospitals in this country were filled with rows of iron lungs, ventilating children paralysed by polio, and not so long ago, schools were forced to close their doors as measles swept through entire classrooms, leaving some children permanently disabled and some parents burying their children.
We do not see those scenes today. That's because of one of the single greatest achievements in the history of medicine vaccination. It is easy in 2026 to forget that it is easy to take for granted a world in which parents do not fear that a common childhood illness might kill their child. But we are at risk of forgetting the lessons our grandparents learned the hard way. And the numbers prove it.
In England, just 81% of five year olds have received their 4 in 1 jab against diseases like polio and polio and tetanus, down from 89% a decade ago, and only 84% have had both their MMR jabs, down from 88%. No childhood vaccine in this country now meets the 95% coverage threshold that the World Health Organisation tells us. We need to keep these diseases from spreading, and they are spreading. Over 800 cases of measles have already been confirmed this year, closing in on the total for the whole of last year.
Vaccine take up is not evenly spread across our country either. In London, MMR coverage is just 72%. In the South west it's 83% and 11 point gap mapped onto deprivation, onto inequality, onto communities who already find it hardest to access the healthcare they need. And it isn't just children. Only 70% of over 65 and just 42% of pregnant women received a flu vaccine this past season, both well short of where they need to be.
Last year gave us one of the worst flu seasons in memory. The tragedy that we saw as the honourable member for Ashford noted, with the Kent meningitis outbreak earlier on this year did lead to a change in policy on vaccination for meningitis, and we saw that there was the capacity for authorities to do more and to take action. And as a mum to a teen who's been called for a meningitis vaccination this summer, I'm hugely grateful for that change in policy.
And that action tells us something important that when we make vaccination easier to access, uptake follows that this isn't a lost cause and it's a policy failure and policy failures can be fixed. But there is a darker force at work too, and we must be honest about it. Online medical disinformation is a genuine threat to public health, and increasingly, it is being given a platform by people who should know better. Reform has refused to condemn Donald Trump's conspiracy theories linking vaccines to autism.
And, as the honourable member for Bury St Edmunds noted at reform UK's conference last year, a keynote speaker stood up and blamed vaccines for cancer in the royal family. We have seen in the United States exactly where this leads. Trusted scientific institutions hollowed out and the health of a nation put at risk doctors and nurses in our own GP surgeries and walk in centres are now telling us they are hearing these same conspiracy theories in this country today.
We must listen to scientists, not conspiracy theorists and politicians who lend credibility to dangerous medical falsehoods must be held to account for the harm they cause. So what can we do about it? First, invest properly and not for the long term in our vaccination programmes. This cannot keep being treated as a cost neutral afterthought. NHS England's strategy exists on paper, but everyone from clinicians to campaigners, agrees it lacks the funding and the senior leadership to actually turn things around.
Second, take vaccination to where people already are. Community spaces, the places people trust, should be central to how we deliver an ambitious new push for record vaccination rates. This is particularly true among the communities we too often write off as hard to reach. Third, we need a serious funded strategy to fight medical disinformation head on. Not 1 or 2 well-meaning social media videos a real strategy that means supporting doctors and nurses with the tools and training to engage constructively with vaccine.
Vaccine sceptical patients. Investing in public health messaging that works with trusted local voices and online influencers, not against them, targeted outreach to the communities where skepticism runs deepest criminal liability for those online influencers and politicians alike who profit from spreading dangerous medical disinformation and a new verification system so no one can falsely claim to be a medical professional online. None of this is about shaming families who have been misled. It is about meeting them where they are, with facts, with compassion, and with a system that makes doing the right thing the easy thing.
We owe it to every family who lived through the era of iron, lungs and empty classrooms, not to let their hard won progress slip away out of our on our watch. So let's fund vaccinations properly. Let's take it into every community , and let's have the courage to say clearly and without apology, we follow the science, not the conspiracy theories. Thank you.
We do not see those scenes today. That's because of one of the single greatest achievements in the history of medicine vaccination. It is easy in 2026 to forget that it is easy to take for granted a world in which parents do not fear that a common childhood illness might kill their child. But we are at risk of forgetting the lessons our grandparents learned the hard way. And the numbers prove it.
In England, just 81% of five year olds have received their 4 in 1 jab against diseases like polio and polio and tetanus, down from 89% a decade ago, and only 84% have had both their MMR jabs, down from 88%. No childhood vaccine in this country now meets the 95% coverage threshold that the World Health Organisation tells us. We need to keep these diseases from spreading, and they are spreading. Over 800 cases of measles have already been confirmed this year, closing in on the total for the whole of last year.
Vaccine take up is not evenly spread across our country either. In London, MMR coverage is just 72%. In the South west it's 83% and 11 point gap mapped onto deprivation, onto inequality, onto communities who already find it hardest to access the healthcare they need. And it isn't just children. Only 70% of over 65 and just 42% of pregnant women received a flu vaccine this past season, both well short of where they need to be.
Last year gave us one of the worst flu seasons in memory. The tragedy that we saw as the honourable member for Ashford noted, with the Kent meningitis outbreak earlier on this year did lead to a change in policy on vaccination for meningitis, and we saw that there was the capacity for authorities to do more and to take action. And as a mum to a teen who's been called for a meningitis vaccination this summer, I'm hugely grateful for that change in policy.
And that action tells us something important that when we make vaccination easier to access, uptake follows that this isn't a lost cause and it's a policy failure and policy failures can be fixed. But there is a darker force at work too, and we must be honest about it. Online medical disinformation is a genuine threat to public health, and increasingly, it is being given a platform by people who should know better. Reform has refused to condemn Donald Trump's conspiracy theories linking vaccines to autism.
And, as the honourable member for Bury St Edmunds noted at reform UK's conference last year, a keynote speaker stood up and blamed vaccines for cancer in the royal family. We have seen in the United States exactly where this leads. Trusted scientific institutions hollowed out and the health of a nation put at risk doctors and nurses in our own GP surgeries and walk in centres are now telling us they are hearing these same conspiracy theories in this country today.
We must listen to scientists, not conspiracy theorists and politicians who lend credibility to dangerous medical falsehoods must be held to account for the harm they cause. So what can we do about it? First, invest properly and not for the long term in our vaccination programmes. This cannot keep being treated as a cost neutral afterthought. NHS England's strategy exists on paper, but everyone from clinicians to campaigners, agrees it lacks the funding and the senior leadership to actually turn things around.
Second, take vaccination to where people already are. Community spaces, the places people trust, should be central to how we deliver an ambitious new push for record vaccination rates. This is particularly true among the communities we too often write off as hard to reach. Third, we need a serious funded strategy to fight medical disinformation head on. Not 1 or 2 well-meaning social media videos a real strategy that means supporting doctors and nurses with the tools and training to engage constructively with vaccine.
Vaccine sceptical patients. Investing in public health messaging that works with trusted local voices and online influencers, not against them, targeted outreach to the communities where skepticism runs deepest criminal liability for those online influencers and politicians alike who profit from spreading dangerous medical disinformation and a new verification system so no one can falsely claim to be a medical professional online. None of this is about shaming families who have been misled. It is about meeting them where they are, with facts, with compassion, and with a system that makes doing the right thing the easy thing.
We owe it to every family who lived through the era of iron, lungs and empty classrooms, not to let their hard won progress slip away out of our on our watch. So let's fund vaccinations properly. Let's take it into every community , and let's have the courage to say clearly and without apology, we follow the science, not the conspiracy theories. Thank you.
14:45
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Opposition spokesperson Doctor Caroline Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Barker. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon and congratulate the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for securing this very important debate. So why do we vaccinate? We've heard today we vaccinate because it prevents illness. It reduces the severity of illness that does occur and it reduces the complications of those. And I should, Madam Chair, declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS, as a parent of three children between 11 and 19, and as someone who was a volunteer vaccinator for many months at the local vaccine centre during Covid 19 pandemic, vaccines were first identified or discovered by Edward Jenner in 1796, and he discovered the smallpox vaccine and eliminated smallpox completely between 58 and 77, 1958 and 1977.
And we've seen with so many diseases had less. But it was so long, I'm not sure I've got time to read it all out, but diphtheria, tetanus, polio, Haemophilus influenza, pertussis, rotavirus, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, flu, RSV, shingles, human papillomavirus, meningitis of various various different strains rubella, mumps, coronavirus. I could go on so many different things that we now have vaccines to we didn't have vaccines to which have reduced the incidence of death and serious illnesses in so many, many people.
It's almost impossible to quantify how many lives have been saved. But a measles has been mentioned by a number of people. And I want to focus on a little bit on measles because Pre-vaccine, when my great uncle Leonard died aged 15 months of measles, measles was a common condition and measles killed many people. But thankfully now it's not. And why? Because of vaccines. But the rate has risen, vaccines have fallen, vaccine rates have fallen, and we have lost our measles free status.
And we do need to make sure that everyone gets the vaccine as far as possible, because there is a concept of herd immunity, which means that if if you have a situation where some children are not able to be vaccinated because of their own personal health conditions, then they are protected to an extent by a large proportion of the population having been vaccinated and the reduction of that disease in the community in some conditions. And so if we if we keep the if the vaccine rates fall, there is a risk to those people as well as those people who've just not had the vaccine from a decision point of view.
So I think I'd be interested to know how the minister is going to focus on measles in particular. Now, when the conservatives were in office, we did modernize the routine vaccination programme. In 2015, the UK became the first country to offer the Bexsero vaccine against meningitis B, that was to babies aged 8 to 16 weeks, followed by a booster around their first birthday. We also, in 2017, switched to the hexavalent 61 routine vaccine programme so babies for the first time could be protected against hepatitis B.
Conservative ministers expanded the HPV vaccination to boys, bringing the UK in line with other developed countries and preventing approximately 30,000 cases of cancer in males. The Vaccine Task Force secured seven vaccines for the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, invested over 400 million in scaling up domestic manufacturing and mobilised more than 100,000 volunteers with sites right across the country. We also backed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine with public funding, and agreed a ten year partnership with Moderna to invest in MRI, mRNA research and development.
So there's been a number of different ways in which the previous government supported vaccination, and I'm looking forward to listening to the minister talk about what her government is going to do to support vaccinations. I also want to talk about meningitis B. Madam Chair, meningitis B is a horrible rapid disease, affects patients very, very quickly. It's one of the diseases that is a pediatrician actually is quite frightening to see because of the speed at which a child goes from very well to very, very critically ill.
And we've all heard about the putting the glass across the rash to see if it disappears. But I've watched that rash appear like with lightning speed across children. And the disease kills and leaves many children with severe lifelong disability as a result. Yet in 2015, as I said, the UK was the world's first to bring in a vaccine in small children against this. But last year we saw a group of children of older children and young adults in Kent and Dorset and Reading, with 21 cases in Kent and two tragic deaths of people with meningitis B infection.
Now there was a local vaccine programme that the government brought in quickly to treat patients, people who may be at risk. But there was also a stampede to private provision at the time, with boots, Superdrug and other commercial ventures running out of this vaccine within, within, within a few hours. Now, the the government have decided that they're going to bring in a system where people born between the 1st of September 2007 and the 31st of August 2008, and those who are starting University of Further Education colleges for the first time this year will be able to have the vaccine.
But the Jcvi have suggested that children should, who have been not been, have been vaccinated with one dose, should be given a booster at age 15. These are people born after the 1st of May 2015, so she has a little while to manage that. But they've also recommended the two doses for adolescents who didn't get the first dose. And the government doesn't seem to have taken that up yet. So is the government going to take that up? And when they have brought in a vaccine for men who have sex with men for the meningitis B vaccine, because interestingly, it also has a 42% protective rate for gonococcal foot condition.
And there was a record high number of cases in 85,000 cases in 2023. And that has helped with those cases. But it would be beneficial to know when the government is going to ensure that all our young children have the protection that they need against this quite frightening disease. There are other things that are slipping to the flu vaccine. The flu vaccination is highly effective at reducing seasonal hospital admission. The W.H.O. recognizes it as the most effective way to prevent infection and severe outcomes from flu, but coverage amongst elderly and at risk groups has declined in England.
Now, I'd be interested to hear why the minister thinks that is what her research shows her and what she thinks is going she's going to do about it. Respiratory syncytial virus affects children, but it also affects the elderly and the vaccine, for it is incredibly effective in the elderly. And last year, the Jcvi recommended its extension to the over 80s. Now, at the time, I asked the government ministers whether the vaccine would be ready for last winter, having been recommended by the Jcvi in the early summer, and my understanding of what was said was that they were going to work at pace and they were reassuring me that it would happen, but it didn't.
So I believe the vaccine will be available to older people this winter. But what is the minister doing to ensure that older people are aware of this vaccine is available, and they take it up, because that will help to reduce the number of admissions to hospital over the winter and reduce the pressures on A&E and ambulances, as well as making people less unwell, which is obviously a good thing. Many members have talked about vaccine hesitancy, and some polling carried out by Ipsos found that more than two thirds of adults believed it was difficult for the public to spot misleading health information, and that those in the most deprived areas were more likely to be affected by it, according to the Health Security Agency survey.
Last year, 47% of parents who reported seeing concerning information about vaccine said they saw it on social media. And as other members have said, this, these sort of messages have been brought out with the suggestion that cancer in the royal family was caused by vaccines being portrayed by a political party. Platform at a conference. And so it's important that we give responsible information about a vaccine that we know to be true. We don't pretend there's no risks to anything.
There's always a small risk to, to, to, to, to, to all sorts of things. And we take a risk when we get up on a morning and come to work every time we cross the road. And every, every aspect of our life contains risk. But we need to be honest with people and explain that these risks with vaccines are tiny, and the risks of the disease as much, potentially much greater, and so that people can make informed decisions. And I do find when patients come to clinic that haven't been vaccinated, and we do check with all children if they've been vaccinated when they come for that first clinic appointment.
But very often when they say, no, they've refused warrants and not been asked again, and it hasn't been discussed with them why no one has asked them why they're worried about it. It's just been accepted at face value. And very often when you talk to parents about it, they will then go and have their children vaccinated. And so that's an important we need to make sure we take opportunities for unvaccinated children when they do present to medical services to try and get them vaccinated.
I welcome the facts around. The vaccination and immunisation were added to the curriculum last summer, but what is happening to provide information, public information to other adults and parents? Chair. It said that vaccine uptake amongst ethnic minority groups is markedly lower. Does the minister have an understanding of why that is, and what is she doing to improve that? The Prime Minister has previously attested to Healthwatch being a key factor in engaging marginalised communities, but this Labour government has placed it on the chopping block in the health Bill that's due to come back to to the House next week.
How does the minister foresee that role being taken up by the patient experience body they intend to replace it with also, chair from April next year, instead of NHS England being responsible for vaccinations, it will be icbs. And I understand this is part of the minister's strategic commissioning vision, but it. Will this additional responsibility be met with additional resources? How will they ensure that the. This does not cause further slippage in vaccinations? Finally, Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention the life sciences industry, which is struggling under this government's tax burden, and ask her what she's going to do now.
We've abolished set to ensure that that goes that that is, given the support it needs. And to to sum up, occasionally during my career, a parent of a critically ill child has looked at me in the eye and said, as the child's often being put in an ambulance to take to intensive care unit, if I'd given my child the vaccine, they wouldn't be this sick or they wouldn't be this ill, would they? Doctor, that is a trauma and a grief in those parents, and a regret that is completely unnecessary and can be prevented.
It is in the minister's hands and this government's hands to do what they can to prevent it. And I look forward to hearing what the minister is planning to do. Thank you, Chair Minister Dame Diana Johnson.
And we've seen with so many diseases had less. But it was so long, I'm not sure I've got time to read it all out, but diphtheria, tetanus, polio, Haemophilus influenza, pertussis, rotavirus, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, flu, RSV, shingles, human papillomavirus, meningitis of various various different strains rubella, mumps, coronavirus. I could go on so many different things that we now have vaccines to we didn't have vaccines to which have reduced the incidence of death and serious illnesses in so many, many people.
It's almost impossible to quantify how many lives have been saved. But a measles has been mentioned by a number of people. And I want to focus on a little bit on measles because Pre-vaccine, when my great uncle Leonard died aged 15 months of measles, measles was a common condition and measles killed many people. But thankfully now it's not. And why? Because of vaccines. But the rate has risen, vaccines have fallen, vaccine rates have fallen, and we have lost our measles free status.
And we do need to make sure that everyone gets the vaccine as far as possible, because there is a concept of herd immunity, which means that if if you have a situation where some children are not able to be vaccinated because of their own personal health conditions, then they are protected to an extent by a large proportion of the population having been vaccinated and the reduction of that disease in the community in some conditions. And so if we if we keep the if the vaccine rates fall, there is a risk to those people as well as those people who've just not had the vaccine from a decision point of view.
So I think I'd be interested to know how the minister is going to focus on measles in particular. Now, when the conservatives were in office, we did modernize the routine vaccination programme. In 2015, the UK became the first country to offer the Bexsero vaccine against meningitis B, that was to babies aged 8 to 16 weeks, followed by a booster around their first birthday. We also, in 2017, switched to the hexavalent 61 routine vaccine programme so babies for the first time could be protected against hepatitis B.
Conservative ministers expanded the HPV vaccination to boys, bringing the UK in line with other developed countries and preventing approximately 30,000 cases of cancer in males. The Vaccine Task Force secured seven vaccines for the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, invested over 400 million in scaling up domestic manufacturing and mobilised more than 100,000 volunteers with sites right across the country. We also backed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine with public funding, and agreed a ten year partnership with Moderna to invest in MRI, mRNA research and development.
So there's been a number of different ways in which the previous government supported vaccination, and I'm looking forward to listening to the minister talk about what her government is going to do to support vaccinations. I also want to talk about meningitis B. Madam Chair, meningitis B is a horrible rapid disease, affects patients very, very quickly. It's one of the diseases that is a pediatrician actually is quite frightening to see because of the speed at which a child goes from very well to very, very critically ill.
And we've all heard about the putting the glass across the rash to see if it disappears. But I've watched that rash appear like with lightning speed across children. And the disease kills and leaves many children with severe lifelong disability as a result. Yet in 2015, as I said, the UK was the world's first to bring in a vaccine in small children against this. But last year we saw a group of children of older children and young adults in Kent and Dorset and Reading, with 21 cases in Kent and two tragic deaths of people with meningitis B infection.
Now there was a local vaccine programme that the government brought in quickly to treat patients, people who may be at risk. But there was also a stampede to private provision at the time, with boots, Superdrug and other commercial ventures running out of this vaccine within, within, within a few hours. Now, the the government have decided that they're going to bring in a system where people born between the 1st of September 2007 and the 31st of August 2008, and those who are starting University of Further Education colleges for the first time this year will be able to have the vaccine.
But the Jcvi have suggested that children should, who have been not been, have been vaccinated with one dose, should be given a booster at age 15. These are people born after the 1st of May 2015, so she has a little while to manage that. But they've also recommended the two doses for adolescents who didn't get the first dose. And the government doesn't seem to have taken that up yet. So is the government going to take that up? And when they have brought in a vaccine for men who have sex with men for the meningitis B vaccine, because interestingly, it also has a 42% protective rate for gonococcal foot condition.
And there was a record high number of cases in 85,000 cases in 2023. And that has helped with those cases. But it would be beneficial to know when the government is going to ensure that all our young children have the protection that they need against this quite frightening disease. There are other things that are slipping to the flu vaccine. The flu vaccination is highly effective at reducing seasonal hospital admission. The W.H.O. recognizes it as the most effective way to prevent infection and severe outcomes from flu, but coverage amongst elderly and at risk groups has declined in England.
Now, I'd be interested to hear why the minister thinks that is what her research shows her and what she thinks is going she's going to do about it. Respiratory syncytial virus affects children, but it also affects the elderly and the vaccine, for it is incredibly effective in the elderly. And last year, the Jcvi recommended its extension to the over 80s. Now, at the time, I asked the government ministers whether the vaccine would be ready for last winter, having been recommended by the Jcvi in the early summer, and my understanding of what was said was that they were going to work at pace and they were reassuring me that it would happen, but it didn't.
So I believe the vaccine will be available to older people this winter. But what is the minister doing to ensure that older people are aware of this vaccine is available, and they take it up, because that will help to reduce the number of admissions to hospital over the winter and reduce the pressures on A&E and ambulances, as well as making people less unwell, which is obviously a good thing. Many members have talked about vaccine hesitancy, and some polling carried out by Ipsos found that more than two thirds of adults believed it was difficult for the public to spot misleading health information, and that those in the most deprived areas were more likely to be affected by it, according to the Health Security Agency survey.
Last year, 47% of parents who reported seeing concerning information about vaccine said they saw it on social media. And as other members have said, this, these sort of messages have been brought out with the suggestion that cancer in the royal family was caused by vaccines being portrayed by a political party. Platform at a conference. And so it's important that we give responsible information about a vaccine that we know to be true. We don't pretend there's no risks to anything.
There's always a small risk to, to, to, to, to, to all sorts of things. And we take a risk when we get up on a morning and come to work every time we cross the road. And every, every aspect of our life contains risk. But we need to be honest with people and explain that these risks with vaccines are tiny, and the risks of the disease as much, potentially much greater, and so that people can make informed decisions. And I do find when patients come to clinic that haven't been vaccinated, and we do check with all children if they've been vaccinated when they come for that first clinic appointment.
But very often when they say, no, they've refused warrants and not been asked again, and it hasn't been discussed with them why no one has asked them why they're worried about it. It's just been accepted at face value. And very often when you talk to parents about it, they will then go and have their children vaccinated. And so that's an important we need to make sure we take opportunities for unvaccinated children when they do present to medical services to try and get them vaccinated.
I welcome the facts around. The vaccination and immunisation were added to the curriculum last summer, but what is happening to provide information, public information to other adults and parents? Chair. It said that vaccine uptake amongst ethnic minority groups is markedly lower. Does the minister have an understanding of why that is, and what is she doing to improve that? The Prime Minister has previously attested to Healthwatch being a key factor in engaging marginalised communities, but this Labour government has placed it on the chopping block in the health Bill that's due to come back to to the House next week.
How does the minister foresee that role being taken up by the patient experience body they intend to replace it with also, chair from April next year, instead of NHS England being responsible for vaccinations, it will be icbs. And I understand this is part of the minister's strategic commissioning vision, but it. Will this additional responsibility be met with additional resources? How will they ensure that the. This does not cause further slippage in vaccinations? Finally, Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention the life sciences industry, which is struggling under this government's tax burden, and ask her what she's going to do now.
We've abolished set to ensure that that goes that that is, given the support it needs. And to to sum up, occasionally during my career, a parent of a critically ill child has looked at me in the eye and said, as the child's often being put in an ambulance to take to intensive care unit, if I'd given my child the vaccine, they wouldn't be this sick or they wouldn't be this ill, would they? Doctor, that is a trauma and a grief in those parents, and a regret that is completely unnecessary and can be prevented.
It is in the minister's hands and this government's hands to do what they can to prevent it. And I look forward to hearing what the minister is planning to do. Thank you, Chair Minister Dame Diana Johnson.
14:56
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mrs. Baker Barker. Sorry, Mrs. Barker, and it's a pleasure to serve under you today. And I'm really grateful to the chair and the members of the Health and Social Care Select Committee for securing this important debate. And to all honourable members who have spoken this afternoon. And I, first of all want to say and commend the passionate opening statement from my honourable friend the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and I'd also like to welcome the Shadow Minister back to her place after the reshuffle, and to congratulate her for surviving so long.
I know that this particular issue is one that many members across the House are very concerned about, and it has struck me this afternoon, listening to the the knowledge and the expertise around the chamber this afternoon on this particular issue. Now, there have been many questions that have been posed. And if I don't get to answer the particular question that each member asked me, I will be writing to give them that particular answer. So we know that after clean water vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health.
It protects individuals, it protects families, and it protects communities. One vaccination can change the whole course of a life for the better, or if missed, for the worse. And I'm very conscious of that because as a Hull MP in October 1961, we were the first city to mass vaccinate with the new oral vaccine when we faced a polio outbreak that threatened the city, over 350 000 people were vaccinated in two weeks, and this led to the national rollout soon after, helping to virtually eliminate the disease nationwide.
So over generations, vaccinations has has made diseases that once killed or disabled thousands of children rare and eradicated smallpox worldwide. Now, vaccination is central to this government's wider shift from sickness to prevention. In terms of the diseases we protect against, we deliver. At the moment, I still believe a world class vaccination programme, backed by expert advice from the Independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. But these benefits depend on high uptake, and childhood vaccination rates have moved in the wrong direction, and falling vaccination rates are a very serious challenge.
Despite our programme achieving over 90% of coverage for babies, first doses against diseases like polio and measles, we are not hitting our targets and there is no single cause and there is also no quick fix. We know that some families struggle to get an appointment that works for them, or have not had clear, trusted information in a way that works for them. Services also vary across the country, and the pandemic put further pressures on the health system.
And misinformation can, of course, add to these problems. We. We are therefore acting on Forefronts clearer NHS organisation, more flexible services, better public information and joined up digital records. And I'm going to deal with each of those in turn. But first of all, I want to address targets and funding and delegation to Icbs. So let's be clear. First of all, the government has not dropped vaccination targets. To summarise, our targets are 95% for routine pre-school immunisations and 90% for routine school age immunisations.
Our targets remain in force and are based on standards set by the World Health Organisation, and we've simplified the NHS planning guidance to avoid duplication, but we did not lower our ambition. We're also backing targets with better accountability. Coverage of MMR vaccinations for young children will form part of how the performance of NHS Icbs will be assessed, as they take on responsibility for vaccination services from April next year. Just on funding, we have not cut funding for vaccination services.
We have confirmed funding for the next three years, giving the NHS certainty as responsibility moves from the NHS regions to icbs. As I said in April 27th, excluding Covid 19 vaccinations, this is a real terms increase and will help icbs and vaccination service providers plan service improvements further ahead and on delegation icbs are best placed to improve vaccination coverage because they understand the needs of their local communities. That matters because the reasons for low coverage vary from place to place.
Icbs can shape those services around local needs and any barriers, whether that means more convenient appointments or clearer information from trusted sources. So this is part of our devolution in action. But I do want to reassure honourable members that national bodies will continue to set standards, monitor performance and hold the system to account. I am going to carry on because I only have very limited time, and I'm very happy to write to the honourable gentleman with anything he wants to say, or I'll talk to him afterwards.
I just want to say a quick word about the Icbs, because I know there's concern about the cuts that have happened to Icbs. Those cuts are around running costs. There are planned reductions that relate just to administration, not the funding that will be used to provide frontline vaccination services. Now, I do want to just talk very quickly about access. Preschool access, flexible services in that sphere are very critical. Vaccination rates are lowest in the most deprived communities, so improving uptake means making services easier to use.
Preschool children will continue to receive their vaccinations through their GPS. We have increased the payment to GPS for each routine childhood vaccination from £10.06 to £12.06, and changed the GP incentives to reward improvements where uptake is lowest. But we recognise that GP surgeries services will not reach every family and we are therefore testing vaccinations through health visiting teams, including through 12 pilots across England, four of which are in London, where health visitors have brought vaccines to family homes to ensure the most vulnerable families are offered these life saving interventions.
We have also been expanding the use of community pharmacies and we are evaluating that too, and we're looking at supporting targeted local outreach as well. So the aim is simple to reach those who might otherwise miss out. Now in school, school age , vaccinations are also a priority. The joint school age vaccination programme of work with my department and the Department for education is now overseeing actions to improve coverage in schools by resolving some of the local delivery problems that we've seen.
They're rolling out a new digital technology to make it easier for busy parents to provide consent. Firstly, they've also published revised guidance for both schools and the NHS. There are regional support forums to tackle problems that are present. There is also this scheme, Mavis, which I just wanted to refer to, which is a new digital system manage a vaccination service in schools. It allows parents to give consent online and to help NHS teams to keep records up to date.
By September 2026, it will be used by 72% of school vaccination teams, covering more than 13,800 schools, with further expansion planned for April 27th. The next issue is around awareness, and we know that most parents want to do the right thing for their children, and our job is to make sure that they can easily find that clear and trustworthy information that they need. That means stronger public campaigns, confident healthcare professionals giving that advice.
And we also think schools and better start hubs could provide that too, as well as local trusted organisations. And we know we all agree on this, that false claims online can cause huge concern and worry. And the actions of politicians. As a number of honourable members have raised today, they do have consequences and we all need to share the responsibility to base our comments on science and evidence. We've seen the damage that misinformation can cause.
The entirely discredited and morally repugnant claims linking MMR and autism in the 1990s led to a substantial fall in coverage. So now experts do monitor emerging misinformation and respond with accurate information. But I also hear the calls today for stronger action against social media companies. But we want to we don't want to mistake misinformation for the whole problem. To improve coverage. Many families simply need vaccinations to be easier to understand and easier to access.
I want to conclude with the issue around digital and data. We're improving vaccination records at the moment. Information is held in different NHS systems, and that does not always follow a patient between services through new digital systems. We are joining these records together. This will help healthcare professionals see which vaccinations someone has had allowed the NHS to identify communities where uptake is low , and give families clearer records, reminders and information about where to get vaccinated.
Over time, families will also be able to access more of this through the NHS app, so vaccinations have protected generations from serious disease, and all of us have a vested interest in making sure that they continue to do so. That does mean clear accountability, easier access, trusted information, and better record keeping. And as I've set out in the comments I've made, we are acting on each of these fronts. Rebuilding coverage will take sustained effort, but we will monitor progress closely and take further action wherever it is needed.
I also note that the House of Lords are due to report on vaccination shortly, and as a new minister to this post, I will be looking very closely at the recommendations that come out of that report. And I've also had the chance to look at the letters that the Health and Social Care Select Committee wrote to my one of my predecessors, and I can assure all honourable members in the room today that I will be going back to the Department and I will be redoubling my efforts to make sure that we see the increase that we all want to have in the number of vaccinations, particularly for children.
Can I thank all honourable members for their contribution this afternoon?
I know that this particular issue is one that many members across the House are very concerned about, and it has struck me this afternoon, listening to the the knowledge and the expertise around the chamber this afternoon on this particular issue. Now, there have been many questions that have been posed. And if I don't get to answer the particular question that each member asked me, I will be writing to give them that particular answer. So we know that after clean water vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health.
It protects individuals, it protects families, and it protects communities. One vaccination can change the whole course of a life for the better, or if missed, for the worse. And I'm very conscious of that because as a Hull MP in October 1961, we were the first city to mass vaccinate with the new oral vaccine when we faced a polio outbreak that threatened the city, over 350 000 people were vaccinated in two weeks, and this led to the national rollout soon after, helping to virtually eliminate the disease nationwide.
So over generations, vaccinations has has made diseases that once killed or disabled thousands of children rare and eradicated smallpox worldwide. Now, vaccination is central to this government's wider shift from sickness to prevention. In terms of the diseases we protect against, we deliver. At the moment, I still believe a world class vaccination programme, backed by expert advice from the Independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. But these benefits depend on high uptake, and childhood vaccination rates have moved in the wrong direction, and falling vaccination rates are a very serious challenge.
Despite our programme achieving over 90% of coverage for babies, first doses against diseases like polio and measles, we are not hitting our targets and there is no single cause and there is also no quick fix. We know that some families struggle to get an appointment that works for them, or have not had clear, trusted information in a way that works for them. Services also vary across the country, and the pandemic put further pressures on the health system.
And misinformation can, of course, add to these problems. We. We are therefore acting on Forefronts clearer NHS organisation, more flexible services, better public information and joined up digital records. And I'm going to deal with each of those in turn. But first of all, I want to address targets and funding and delegation to Icbs. So let's be clear. First of all, the government has not dropped vaccination targets. To summarise, our targets are 95% for routine pre-school immunisations and 90% for routine school age immunisations.
Our targets remain in force and are based on standards set by the World Health Organisation, and we've simplified the NHS planning guidance to avoid duplication, but we did not lower our ambition. We're also backing targets with better accountability. Coverage of MMR vaccinations for young children will form part of how the performance of NHS Icbs will be assessed, as they take on responsibility for vaccination services from April next year. Just on funding, we have not cut funding for vaccination services.
We have confirmed funding for the next three years, giving the NHS certainty as responsibility moves from the NHS regions to icbs. As I said in April 27th, excluding Covid 19 vaccinations, this is a real terms increase and will help icbs and vaccination service providers plan service improvements further ahead and on delegation icbs are best placed to improve vaccination coverage because they understand the needs of their local communities. That matters because the reasons for low coverage vary from place to place.
Icbs can shape those services around local needs and any barriers, whether that means more convenient appointments or clearer information from trusted sources. So this is part of our devolution in action. But I do want to reassure honourable members that national bodies will continue to set standards, monitor performance and hold the system to account. I am going to carry on because I only have very limited time, and I'm very happy to write to the honourable gentleman with anything he wants to say, or I'll talk to him afterwards.
I just want to say a quick word about the Icbs, because I know there's concern about the cuts that have happened to Icbs. Those cuts are around running costs. There are planned reductions that relate just to administration, not the funding that will be used to provide frontline vaccination services. Now, I do want to just talk very quickly about access. Preschool access, flexible services in that sphere are very critical. Vaccination rates are lowest in the most deprived communities, so improving uptake means making services easier to use.
Preschool children will continue to receive their vaccinations through their GPS. We have increased the payment to GPS for each routine childhood vaccination from £10.06 to £12.06, and changed the GP incentives to reward improvements where uptake is lowest. But we recognise that GP surgeries services will not reach every family and we are therefore testing vaccinations through health visiting teams, including through 12 pilots across England, four of which are in London, where health visitors have brought vaccines to family homes to ensure the most vulnerable families are offered these life saving interventions.
We have also been expanding the use of community pharmacies and we are evaluating that too, and we're looking at supporting targeted local outreach as well. So the aim is simple to reach those who might otherwise miss out. Now in school, school age , vaccinations are also a priority. The joint school age vaccination programme of work with my department and the Department for education is now overseeing actions to improve coverage in schools by resolving some of the local delivery problems that we've seen.
They're rolling out a new digital technology to make it easier for busy parents to provide consent. Firstly, they've also published revised guidance for both schools and the NHS. There are regional support forums to tackle problems that are present. There is also this scheme, Mavis, which I just wanted to refer to, which is a new digital system manage a vaccination service in schools. It allows parents to give consent online and to help NHS teams to keep records up to date.
By September 2026, it will be used by 72% of school vaccination teams, covering more than 13,800 schools, with further expansion planned for April 27th. The next issue is around awareness, and we know that most parents want to do the right thing for their children, and our job is to make sure that they can easily find that clear and trustworthy information that they need. That means stronger public campaigns, confident healthcare professionals giving that advice.
And we also think schools and better start hubs could provide that too, as well as local trusted organisations. And we know we all agree on this, that false claims online can cause huge concern and worry. And the actions of politicians. As a number of honourable members have raised today, they do have consequences and we all need to share the responsibility to base our comments on science and evidence. We've seen the damage that misinformation can cause.
The entirely discredited and morally repugnant claims linking MMR and autism in the 1990s led to a substantial fall in coverage. So now experts do monitor emerging misinformation and respond with accurate information. But I also hear the calls today for stronger action against social media companies. But we want to we don't want to mistake misinformation for the whole problem. To improve coverage. Many families simply need vaccinations to be easier to understand and easier to access.
I want to conclude with the issue around digital and data. We're improving vaccination records at the moment. Information is held in different NHS systems, and that does not always follow a patient between services through new digital systems. We are joining these records together. This will help healthcare professionals see which vaccinations someone has had allowed the NHS to identify communities where uptake is low , and give families clearer records, reminders and information about where to get vaccinated.
Over time, families will also be able to access more of this through the NHS app, so vaccinations have protected generations from serious disease, and all of us have a vested interest in making sure that they continue to do so. That does mean clear accountability, easier access, trusted information, and better record keeping. And as I've set out in the comments I've made, we are acting on each of these fronts. Rebuilding coverage will take sustained effort, but we will monitor progress closely and take further action wherever it is needed.
I also note that the House of Lords are due to report on vaccination shortly, and as a new minister to this post, I will be looking very closely at the recommendations that come out of that report. And I've also had the chance to look at the letters that the Health and Social Care Select Committee wrote to my one of my predecessors, and I can assure all honourable members in the room today that I will be going back to the Department and I will be redoubling my efforts to make sure that we see the increase that we all want to have in the number of vaccinations, particularly for children.
Can I thank all honourable members for their contribution this afternoon?
15:08
15:08
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the end of the debate, at least, if not the beginning. I thank the Minister for her response. I and the committee welcome her commitment to kind of get back to us and to work with us. I would just kind of politely point out that the very good measures that she has outlined have been measures that the government and the strategy have been undertaking for many years, and we're still seeing the decline continue.
So I would encourage her to go back to her officials, press them for a timeline to regain elimination status and reach the the WHO targets. And if they're unwilling to put a target on it, I would suggest that perhaps they're not as confident in the measures they're so far taking to achieve them, but I thank her for her commitment to work with us. Thank you.
So I would encourage her to go back to her officials, press them for a timeline to regain elimination status and reach the the WHO targets. And if they're unwilling to put a target on it, I would suggest that perhaps they're not as confident in the measures they're so far taking to achieve them, but I thank her for her commitment to work with us. Thank you.
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you very much, Sir Desmond. And it's really fantastic to see how many members from across the House are here for this absolutely fundamental debate this afternoon. Climate breakdown and nature security are the most immediate and severe national security threats facing our age. The fundamentals of human existence, food, water, health all depend upon healthy, stable ecosystems. If anyone still thinks that environmental breakdown is a distant concern, this year should dispel that notion.
We've experienced the hottest year on record so far with prolonged drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires, and we're likely to have the highest number of heat related deaths ever, forcing ministers to evaluate where our national resilience is falling short. As the National Heat Risk Commission report today said, the country's leadership has failed to implement measures that would protect lives from temperature rises, which have been expected for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee's estimates further temperature increases in the near term, with extremes projected to become the new normal.
An annual heat related deaths may reach ten 000. This year's Super El Nino will further cause chaos to seasonal weather systems. Not only is this an immediate risk to life, it's also rapidly destabilising our natural systems. We talk about tipping points, and no clearer could they be demonstrated than the glacial collapse in the Himalayas last month, which unleashed a catastrophic torrent into a river system and thousands were tragically killed or remain missing.
Since then, glaciers vulnerable to collapse are being mapped out, with millions potentially impacted by violent shifts in landscape and disastrous loss of vital freshwater supplies. Today, we debate a crucial national security assessment report that warns of the rapid depletion of global biodiversity, the collapse of critical ecosystems and the dismantling of major global food systems. The origins of this report are unclear. Indeed, the only document published publicly is a redacted summary after a Freedom of Information request by Green Alliance.
What we do know is that the Joint Intelligence Committee co-ordinated this landmark work to measure the impacts of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse on our national security. This committee is the authority on profiling risks to the country and our society. It's not a group of environmental campaigners, but of top ranking specialist experts from across the intelligence community, responsible for monitoring and providing early warnings of threats to Britain. The government has repeatedly refused to publish the full version, despite requests from cross-party MPs and the Environmental Audit Committee.
And I should declare that I'm a member of that committee. And not only that, expert witnesses giving testimonies at the Environmental Audit Committee, the likes of General Richard Nugee and Natural England chair Tony Juniper, have noted that there has not been an official government response, as one would expect from a seminal piece of work, let alone such a stark warning from our intelligence authorities. But what we do have is a redacted version of this report, which is stark enough.
The assessment conclusively states that global ecosystem collapse and the loss of biodiversity threatens national security, human life and economic prosperity. The assessment presents a world where cascading risks from climate breakdown lead to crop failures, water scarcity, floods and novel diseases. That will mean people will have to face likely food shortages, inflation, public health risks for billions of people, supply chain disruption and loss of livelihoods, mass displacement and conflict.
We've experienced the hottest year on record so far with prolonged drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires, and we're likely to have the highest number of heat related deaths ever, forcing ministers to evaluate where our national resilience is falling short. As the National Heat Risk Commission report today said, the country's leadership has failed to implement measures that would protect lives from temperature rises, which have been expected for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee's estimates further temperature increases in the near term, with extremes projected to become the new normal.
An annual heat related deaths may reach ten 000. This year's Super El Nino will further cause chaos to seasonal weather systems. Not only is this an immediate risk to life, it's also rapidly destabilising our natural systems. We talk about tipping points, and no clearer could they be demonstrated than the glacial collapse in the Himalayas last month, which unleashed a catastrophic torrent into a river system and thousands were tragically killed or remain missing.
Since then, glaciers vulnerable to collapse are being mapped out, with millions potentially impacted by violent shifts in landscape and disastrous loss of vital freshwater supplies. Today, we debate a crucial national security assessment report that warns of the rapid depletion of global biodiversity, the collapse of critical ecosystems and the dismantling of major global food systems. The origins of this report are unclear. Indeed, the only document published publicly is a redacted summary after a Freedom of Information request by Green Alliance.
What we do know is that the Joint Intelligence Committee co-ordinated this landmark work to measure the impacts of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse on our national security. This committee is the authority on profiling risks to the country and our society. It's not a group of environmental campaigners, but of top ranking specialist experts from across the intelligence community, responsible for monitoring and providing early warnings of threats to Britain. The government has repeatedly refused to publish the full version, despite requests from cross-party MPs and the Environmental Audit Committee.
And I should declare that I'm a member of that committee. And not only that, expert witnesses giving testimonies at the Environmental Audit Committee, the likes of General Richard Nugee and Natural England chair Tony Juniper, have noted that there has not been an official government response, as one would expect from a seminal piece of work, let alone such a stark warning from our intelligence authorities. But what we do have is a redacted version of this report, which is stark enough.
The assessment conclusively states that global ecosystem collapse and the loss of biodiversity threatens national security, human life and economic prosperity. The assessment presents a world where cascading risks from climate breakdown lead to crop failures, water scarcity, floods and novel diseases. That will mean people will have to face likely food shortages, inflation, public health risks for billions of people, supply chain disruption and loss of livelihoods, mass displacement and conflict.
15:13
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you very much for giving way. A record hot summer has spread bluetongue disease at record rates in animals across my constituency in north Devon, doing enormous damage to farming across the West Country. Does he agree with me that one of the most alarming findings in this report is just how exposed the UK is to food insecurity?
15:14
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yeah. Thank you. I thank the honourable member for North Devon for raising this point, and I absolutely agree with him. I'll come on to talk about food security later on. And he's absolutely right to draw this to our attention in this debate. So talking about the scale of the risks that we face, if this is not one of the gravest prevailing national security risks of our time, I do not know what is.
Without systemic change at national and international level, we are on a pathway to total collapse of globally critical ecosystems and the trajectory of the collapse as soon as 2030, for some 2050, for others.
Without systemic change at national and international level, we are on a pathway to total collapse of globally critical ecosystems and the trajectory of the collapse as soon as 2030, for some 2050, for others.
15:15
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I'm grateful. Biodiversity loss in my own seats happened with Thames Water dumping sewage into the River Brent. And while I'm grateful the Clean Water Bill will see an end to that sort of thing, would you agree with me that we need greater assurance of building back these vital ecosystems that are being ravaged to.
15:15
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I absolutely agree with her that the impact is seen at a local level in all of our communities, and nature restoration is absolutely fundamental. We've got to step up the pace of that, and I will set that out further. Later in my speech. The Joint Intelligence Committee has identified several degrading ecosystems, the destruction of which could be so severe that our own national security and prosperity will be in peril.
These include the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo basin, the major river systems of the Himalayas, the richly productive and abundant Southeast Asian coral reefs, the aquatic nurseries of the mangrove habitats, and the stabilizing force of the Arctic boreal forests. That's why our national security cannot be understood only within our own borders. We cannot build a secure island in an insecure world. We must keep to our international obligations, such as the actions detailed in the Global Biodiversity Framework, to be reviewed next month at Cop 20 at Cop 17, and that we no longer obfuscate on contributing to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility Investment Fund that the UK so proudly helped to set up.
These include the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo basin, the major river systems of the Himalayas, the richly productive and abundant Southeast Asian coral reefs, the aquatic nurseries of the mangrove habitats, and the stabilizing force of the Arctic boreal forests. That's why our national security cannot be understood only within our own borders. We cannot build a secure island in an insecure world. We must keep to our international obligations, such as the actions detailed in the Global Biodiversity Framework, to be reviewed next month at Cop 20 at Cop 17, and that we no longer obfuscate on contributing to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility Investment Fund that the UK so proudly helped to set up.
15:16
15:16
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
As a former, I thank you. As a former journalist, I'm acutely aware of the need to communicate the risks clearly as to many of the hundreds of my constituents who have got in touch with me about this. But as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, can I say that the need to share knowledge and best practice within the United Kingdom, within the devolved nations, is incredibly important. So whilst we need to look at this as a worldwide endeavour, does he agree with me that the way that the home nations, the devolved nations, also share best practice and share knowledge is also important if we do not get it right as a UK as a whole UK, then we are already getting off the wrong foot for getting it right across the world.
15:17
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I do agree with him that on nature, as on climate leadership starts at home, the UK has a huge leadership role to play. That of course has to apply to devolved government, to regional government, to local government as well. And we need to make sure that governments at all levels are properly resourced, both for nature recovery and for climate resilience plans. And I think this data, which I've recently commissioned work on and will be releasing soon, which shows that we do not have the level of local resilience plans that are needed on this issue.
I think another member was wishing to come in on the issue of the Tropical Forest Forever facility. Thank you.
I think another member was wishing to come in on the issue of the Tropical Forest Forever facility. Thank you.
15:17
15:17
15:17
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I thank the member for raising that point. And absolutely, I welcome positive action wherever it happens. I have no problem at all in welcoming positive steps from the government. I want to see more of them. I look forward to the minister who I welcome to her place as my constituency neighbour, responding to this debate later on. I want to be a constructive voice in this debate, and I very much welcome that news today. While to some extent, countries with more resources like the UK can insulate citizens from the worst effects, countries least able and most exposed to risks may not be able to do so and protect their communities from the full force of the impacts, from mass displacements to famine.
For some of the most vulnerable countries, especially in the global South, water scarcity means famine impact on energy supplies and are likely to lead to the displacement and deaths of millions of people. Such instability is intensified further by competition for scarce resources and worsens cascading external risks to our own domestic national security.
For some of the most vulnerable countries, especially in the global South, water scarcity means famine impact on energy supplies and are likely to lead to the displacement and deaths of millions of people. Such instability is intensified further by competition for scarce resources and worsens cascading external risks to our own domestic national security.
15:18
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable member for giving way and for raising the importance of the Joint Intelligence Committee report and shedding light on it. Would he agree with me that you mentioned citizens, and we must have citizens brought up to speed on what they are facing with climate change. So would he agree with me that we must have a televised national emergency briefing across the UK?
15:19
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I am very grateful for the honourable lady raising this point. I completely agree. Like many members in the chamber today, I've signed the early day motion calling for the national screening of the People's Emergency Briefing. I know a lot of members will have hosted or attended screenings in their own constituencies, as I have done. I've got more coming up in my constituency in the coming weeks. It is incredibly powerful, I think, even more powerful than the showing in November, because you see how people are responding to that evidence, which is incredibly powerful.
And of course, we need to look at the solutions as well as the problems. But I think absolutely, I would echo calls, and I'll be interested in the minister's comments on the calls for there to be a national screening. So we can be really clear on the scale of this challenge, which sadly doesn't get the same level of national profile as it did a few years ago. And we need to increase that profile back up.
And of course, we need to look at the solutions as well as the problems. But I think absolutely, I would echo calls, and I'll be interested in the minister's comments on the calls for there to be a national screening. So we can be really clear on the scale of this challenge, which sadly doesn't get the same level of national profile as it did a few years ago. And we need to increase that profile back up.
15:20
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Very grateful. I was with my honourable friend at the national emergency briefing, and like him, have many constituents who I'm very grateful for organising local screenings of the national emergency briefing, as well as agreeing that the climate is, is, is an emergency. Does he agree it's also a public health emergency? Not only the heat deaths that we've seen here in the UK, but obviously that global impact on public health through things that he himself has mentioned, like water scarcity, but the spread of malaria to new regions.
And is that a reason? Would he agree for continuing to support the likes of WHO in their efforts to tackle this as a climate and public health emergency?
And is that a reason? Would he agree for continuing to support the likes of WHO in their efforts to tackle this as a climate and public health emergency?
15:20
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. And Sir Desmond, I think the honourable lady is absolutely right. This is a public health issue that's clear from organisations like the World Health Organization. It was clear from the evidence we had at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday from Natural England, not only of the risks to public health of not taking action, but how nature as national security infrastructure can help with positive health outcomes. We really need to embrace that as a country.
Nature is a foundational element of national security, nature depletion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown are not merely environmental problems. Collectively, they lead to the ruin of critical systems upon which lives and livelihoods depend. We're no longer confronted by individual isolated incidents, events, or extinctions. What lies ahead is whole system collapse, as nature provides essential services that protect people, food, water and the economy, then nature is infrastructure, our most critical infrastructure, and it should be treated as such.
Yes.
Nature is a foundational element of national security, nature depletion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown are not merely environmental problems. Collectively, they lead to the ruin of critical systems upon which lives and livelihoods depend. We're no longer confronted by individual isolated incidents, events, or extinctions. What lies ahead is whole system collapse, as nature provides essential services that protect people, food, water and the economy, then nature is infrastructure, our most critical infrastructure, and it should be treated as such.
Yes.
15:21
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you very much for doing so. The Labour Rural Research Group has just done a report on the future of the rural economy. And one of those chapters was looking at nature markets, which actually are going to be really important for rural economies moving forward because of how we should think about and value nature. I wonder whether he would agree with me that in order for nature markets to really work and evolve quickly, which is what's required, we do need Defra and government to actually put in place a clearer framework so that people know how they can invest in nature and biodiversity within the UK.
15:22
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. Well, like him, I represent a rural constituency, Waveney Valley in East Anglia, where I've done a lot to support and promote local solutions around things like natural flood management, landscape scale projects to renaturalised rivers with all of the environmental benefits that that brings. And I know that wildlife trusts and others are looking at things like nature markets as part of the answer to that. Now, I don't think that market forces are going to be anything like the majority of the solution to this problem.
We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that was the case, but it could be part of the answer. As long as we are clear that the government is setting out the direction and scale of ambition that's needed, and the public funding goes in to make that possible, and that, crucially, companies are not allowed to get away with trashing crucial ancient environments in one area by funding them in another. So we need to be very careful how we use those mechanisms, but in the right way as part of a wider mix, potentially.
We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that was the case, but it could be part of the answer. As long as we are clear that the government is setting out the direction and scale of ambition that's needed, and the public funding goes in to make that possible, and that, crucially, companies are not allowed to get away with trashing crucial ancient environments in one area by funding them in another. So we need to be very careful how we use those mechanisms, but in the right way as part of a wider mix, potentially.
15:23
15:23
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank the honourable member for giving way. Does he agree that if we are serious about tackling global biodiversity loss, we must ensure that commodities such as soya and palm oil entering UK supply chain are not linked to deforestation and that UK trade and finance are not contributing to ecosystem destruction overseas.
15:23
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I thank the honourable lady for raising this point. She's absolutely right that in terms of protecting international, crucial ecosystems, our trade has got to be fair and sustainable and that's got to be embedded into farming policy. I'm sure the minister will pick up on on that point as well. Landscapes where ecosystems are compromised are more prone to natural disasters, drought, wildfires and flash floods. I say natural disasters, but these are often the results of decades of destructive policies and practices.
Natural systems that reduce exposure to climate hazards are therefore part of our national resilience. We need to invest in adaptation now . Sustainable land management, for example, or harvesting and conserving water supplies have become absolutely essential. The Climate Change Committee's 2026 assessment makes the wider point clearly climate risks to the UK are intensifying, but the resulting damage is not inevitable. Proven and cost effective adaptation measures are available now and implementing them is critical to protecting lives, infrastructure and economic prosperity.
Natural systems that reduce exposure to climate hazards are therefore part of our national resilience. We need to invest in adaptation now . Sustainable land management, for example, or harvesting and conserving water supplies have become absolutely essential. The Climate Change Committee's 2026 assessment makes the wider point clearly climate risks to the UK are intensifying, but the resulting damage is not inevitable. Proven and cost effective adaptation measures are available now and implementing them is critical to protecting lives, infrastructure and economic prosperity.
15:24
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
I thank the honourable member for bringing the speech to, to, to , to the hall around Whitney. And we have got 200 farmers implementing a landscape recovery scheme. Only three have been implemented in the country. That one is on the Evenlode. Would it be helpful if the government and the Minister was to say, when they're going to bring forward the third round of landscape recovery scheme, because we urgently need to be moving faster than we are now?
15:25
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yes, I absolutely agree with him, and that is a really strong example of one of the main points I want to make today, which is I know the minister will point to a number of specific welcome measures that are happening, but it's whether the scale and pace of those measures is commensurate with the challenge. And at the moment, it is a long way from being so, and the funding that needs to be put in place for landscape scale recovery, for sustainable farming incentives is crucial.
Farmers say to me all the time, we will get behind this as long as we can see there's a long term funding framework to do so. And I had one farmer in Suffolk said to me that he built a pond in his constituency, which was crucial for natural flood management, in spite of the fact that it actually reduced the income on his farm. Most farmers are not going to be in a position to do that. So that's got to change. Yes.
Farmers say to me all the time, we will get behind this as long as we can see there's a long term funding framework to do so. And I had one farmer in Suffolk said to me that he built a pond in his constituency, which was crucial for natural flood management, in spite of the fact that it actually reduced the income on his farm. Most farmers are not going to be in a position to do that. So that's got to change. Yes.
15:25
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I appreciate him giving away. One of the other recommendations within that report was to ensure that at least 60% of food consumption in the UK is produced in the UK. And does he agree that the only way we will ensure that is by protecting our farmers from the changes that we are seeing in our climate?
15:26
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yes, this is absolutely crucial. We've seen with all sorts of shocks that farmers are facing, that more protection and support is needed. I think the ambition needs to be a lot higher than 60% of food produced in the UK in order to be resilient to the scale of, of, of geopolitical challenges as well as environmental challenges that the, that the world is going to be facing. So we should begin to plan and fund national natural infrastructure with the same seriousness as engineered infrastructure.
The assessment makes clear that there is still a chance for major interventions to slow the trend to protect communities and restore national security, but only if we act now in this Parliament and at the scale the crisis demands.
The assessment makes clear that there is still a chance for major interventions to slow the trend to protect communities and restore national security, but only if we act now in this Parliament and at the scale the crisis demands.
15:26
15:26
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Member for giving way as being extremely generous with his time. The Brit Valley Project in West Dorset is bringing together 43 landowners and will improve biodiversity over 4000 acres every time. And I'm sure other members have got examples. Every time I speak to community groups, they want to see faster action. I wonder whether or not he shares my frustration that there are politicians nationally and internationally who are using the climate crisis and ignoring the science for their own political aims.
Yeah.
Yeah.
15:27
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yes, of course , I share that frustration. I'm very pleased to see how many members there are from lots of parties in this House, for this chamber today, for this debate. We need to increase those numbers and rebuild the national consensus that we had on climate, and that I hope we can also have on nature restoration and on climate adaptation as well. So, you know, we all need to be tackling the the myths out there make this debate less fractious and more about bringing people together than driving culture war wedges.
And I think we can do that with, with how we put forward the solutions that are needed. Turning to food security, Sir Desmond, nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than on food security this year. Water scarcity and drought threaten food production, as all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK's agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, with this year almost certainly adding to that record, I will do.
Of course, I'm being generous with interventions. It will mean it's longer before we get to more speeches, but I'm trusting those intervening conscious of that. You are being.
And I think we can do that with, with how we put forward the solutions that are needed. Turning to food security, Sir Desmond, nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than on food security this year. Water scarcity and drought threaten food production, as all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK's agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, with this year almost certainly adding to that record, I will do.
Of course, I'm being generous with interventions. It will mean it's longer before we get to more speeches, but I'm trusting those intervening conscious of that. You are being.
15:28
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Extremely generous and thank you so much for for that. On food security, like many people here who have rural constituencies, I met farmers over the summer , and many of them told me they want to build their own reservoirs and to extract water dynamically from rivers, so they can use that water when it's needed. Does the honourable member agree with me that this is a very simple regulatory change that the government could make, that would support our farmers adapt to these climate change challenges?
15:28
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yes, I do agree with the member. This is something that farmers in my constituency have raised with me. Frequently. There must be solutions to the fact that we have got a growing problem of far too little water at times of the year, and growing problem of far too much water at other times. And the solution he outlined is part of the answer to how we need to seriously step up our water management work.
The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food, it's about the resilience of the entire system. Agricultural production, soils, water, fertiliser feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which all of them depend. We also depend on international food, food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system.
So protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice, it's an investment in our own food security. I do hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not done so, the number of speeches later would be much longer list. So I will persist for now. We also depend. So there is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat.
It's also identifies remedies and. Because it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature, not just as an environmental policy sitting outside of national security policy, but as nature, delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy. The government has levers to begin this wide scale transformation, for example, fully funding the National Tree Plan, expanding the sustainable farming incentive, investing in natural flood management schemes like river renaturalisation and wetland restoration.
Regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production, restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience, restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management. Establishing more broadly broadleaf woodlands to enhance habitats for biodiversity and landscape scale resilience. Converting to nature friendly and climate resilient farming. All these measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend. We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure, and establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation.
That means recognising that healthy natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure. Turning to the transparency issue, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency to scrutinise the evidence and ensure our responses. Nation is consummate to the threats and if the government wants the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts. In conclusion, Sir Desmond historians will write about our decisions. Future generations will judge us for it.
They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life, and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There's a temptation in politics to treat environmental policy as something we address as an optional extra. The government no longer has the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty of everyone in this House to disregard these warnings.
We need a minister responsible for coordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach, to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. Now, the Prime Minister has created a number ten for the North. We need a number ten for the future in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public.
Nature's security is national security and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.
The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food, it's about the resilience of the entire system. Agricultural production, soils, water, fertiliser feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which all of them depend. We also depend on international food, food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system.
So protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice, it's an investment in our own food security. I do hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not done so, the number of speeches later would be much longer list. So I will persist for now. We also depend. So there is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat.
It's also identifies remedies and. Because it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature, not just as an environmental policy sitting outside of national security policy, but as nature, delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy. The government has levers to begin this wide scale transformation, for example, fully funding the National Tree Plan, expanding the sustainable farming incentive, investing in natural flood management schemes like river renaturalisation and wetland restoration.
Regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production, restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience, restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management. Establishing more broadly broadleaf woodlands to enhance habitats for biodiversity and landscape scale resilience. Converting to nature friendly and climate resilient farming. All these measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend. We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure, and establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation.
That means recognising that healthy natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure. Turning to the transparency issue, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency to scrutinise the evidence and ensure our responses. Nation is consummate to the threats and if the government wants the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts. In conclusion, Sir Desmond historians will write about our decisions. Future generations will judge us for it.
They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life, and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There's a temptation in politics to treat environmental policy as something we address as an optional extra. The government no longer has the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty of everyone in this House to disregard these warnings.
We need a minister responsible for coordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach, to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. Now, the Prime Minister has created a number ten for the North. We need a number ten for the future in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public.
Nature's security is national security and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.
15:33
15:33
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Desmond. And in two minutes I'll do my best. I am proud to represent a very small urban area in Britain, which over the years we've managed to increase the number of parks and open space we've got, and we have a very assertive approach from our council in encouraging school gardens and an understanding of the need for biodiversity amongst children, because if we're to win this debate about biodiversity, it's got to be won by convincing people who live in urban areas, particularly who are often sadly have very little interaction with the natural world, and children have been brought up without any understanding of the natural world, gardens or growing anything.
And indeed, I was very sadly talking to some children a couple of weeks ago about hearing the cuckoo. None of them knew what a cuckoo was, and none had ever heard of one. I grew up with the in a country area where we had a competition about who heard the first cuckoo in spring. It's that sort of change that we've got to bring about in that understanding. If we're to win this debate on biodiversity and on sustainability in in the planet, the government is pledged to 3030 for the oceans.
Fine. I agree with that. Absolutely. But the problem with delineating figures like that is it doesn't address the issue of river pollution going into the seas and very dangerous chemicals that go with it, that don't disappear, that stay there forever. So designating part of an ocean as a marine protection zone doesn't actually protect the entirety of the ocean. All it does is designates that area. We have to address the wider issue, and that is pollution that is emanating from our towns and our cities, emanating from our own industries into our rivers and the water companies that don't deal with it.
I've got 13 seconds left. Mr.. Sir Desmond. So I'll simply say this. It's great that the House has come back to this issue. It's great that so many members want to be here today. We're beginning to reverse the downward trend on the environment, debate in favour of debate on real sustainability.
And indeed, I was very sadly talking to some children a couple of weeks ago about hearing the cuckoo. None of them knew what a cuckoo was, and none had ever heard of one. I grew up with the in a country area where we had a competition about who heard the first cuckoo in spring. It's that sort of change that we've got to bring about in that understanding. If we're to win this debate on biodiversity and on sustainability in in the planet, the government is pledged to 3030 for the oceans.
Fine. I agree with that. Absolutely. But the problem with delineating figures like that is it doesn't address the issue of river pollution going into the seas and very dangerous chemicals that go with it, that don't disappear, that stay there forever. So designating part of an ocean as a marine protection zone doesn't actually protect the entirety of the ocean. All it does is designates that area. We have to address the wider issue, and that is pollution that is emanating from our towns and our cities, emanating from our own industries into our rivers and the water companies that don't deal with it.
I've got 13 seconds left. Mr.. Sir Desmond. So I'll simply say this. It's great that the House has come back to this issue. It's great that so many members want to be here today. We're beginning to reverse the downward trend on the environment, debate in favour of debate on real sustainability.
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
chairmanship. Congratulations to the honourable gentleman. Today is an incredibly important opportunity to highlight this national security assessment on global biodiversity loss, on ecosystem collapse and national security, in which government intelligence authorities spell out a clear warning environmental degradation is an existential threat to the UK's national security. Now, I entirely
15:36
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Now, I entirely support the government's commitment to ensuring that every penny of international aid is well directed. But in the context of General News's assessment that global biodiversity loss creates that national security risk, here you have to question whether the international climate, finance and aid cuts can furthermore be justified. This report spells out the link between that degradation overseas and the impacts that it has here. The assessment lays out the consequences food insecurity, economic insecurity, increased migration, migration and refugees, increased inter-state competition, conflict and geopolitical instability, all of which will threaten us here at home.
Experts told the Environmental Audit Committee. That means we must intervene internationally to halt and reverse environmental degradation. In concluding, given the shortness of the time, I'd like to conclude by asking the minister three things. Firstly, what specific actions have the government taken since this assessment was completed? Secondly, can I welcome the fact that the government have joined other countries in investing in the Tropical Forest Forever facility? It's absolutely fundamental to protecting us here.
And thirdly, will the minister consider bringing forward the National adaptation plan for Nat three, published by the previous government in 2023, was deemed ineffective by the Climate Change Committee. Nat four is not due until 2028, but can we afford to wait two more years before we have an adequate plan?
Experts told the Environmental Audit Committee. That means we must intervene internationally to halt and reverse environmental degradation. In concluding, given the shortness of the time, I'd like to conclude by asking the minister three things. Firstly, what specific actions have the government taken since this assessment was completed? Secondly, can I welcome the fact that the government have joined other countries in investing in the Tropical Forest Forever facility? It's absolutely fundamental to protecting us here.
And thirdly, will the minister consider bringing forward the National adaptation plan for Nat three, published by the previous government in 2023, was deemed ineffective by the Climate Change Committee. Nat four is not due until 2028, but can we afford to wait two more years before we have an adequate plan?
15:37
15:37
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
We see just recently what ecosystem collapse looks like collapsing glaciers in the Himalayas. Horrific loss of life on the Nepal Tibet border. We've seen what it looks like in the UK. The hottest ever summer, the worst ever arable harvest. Things are only going to get worse. So clearly this is a matter of national security. And it's the security services themselves that are raising the alarm as well, not just the environmentalists.
We have to change course. Farmers in my own constituency of North Herefordshire see this on a daily basis, and we have to change the conversation about national security to recognise that it isn't just about investment in weaponry and conflict, it's about recognising the true existential risk posed by climate change and by ecosystem collapse, both in the UK and in ecosystems across the world, as highlighted in this report. Now, it's disappointing that this short report had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the government, published only after a huge amount of pressure.
Where is the evidence base underlying it? What is the government afraid to share with us? Will the government publish the full report and the evidence base underneath it? And if they won't, why not? Will they recognise that ecosystems are critical national infrastructure and have to be addressed as such? And to echo a point made by my honourable friend across the floor, will they recognise that we cannot wait another few years for the next national adaptation plan? In the context of today's announcement from the WMO pointing out that climate change is supercharging natural phenomena like the El Nino, that will lead to even worse effects in the UK and globally than we've already seen this summer.
Nature security is national security.
We have to change course. Farmers in my own constituency of North Herefordshire see this on a daily basis, and we have to change the conversation about national security to recognise that it isn't just about investment in weaponry and conflict, it's about recognising the true existential risk posed by climate change and by ecosystem collapse, both in the UK and in ecosystems across the world, as highlighted in this report. Now, it's disappointing that this short report had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the government, published only after a huge amount of pressure.
Where is the evidence base underlying it? What is the government afraid to share with us? Will the government publish the full report and the evidence base underneath it? And if they won't, why not? Will they recognise that ecosystems are critical national infrastructure and have to be addressed as such? And to echo a point made by my honourable friend across the floor, will they recognise that we cannot wait another few years for the next national adaptation plan? In the context of today's announcement from the WMO pointing out that climate change is supercharging natural phenomena like the El Nino, that will lead to even worse effects in the UK and globally than we've already seen this summer.
Nature security is national security.
15:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr. chairman, it's a pleasure to serve on the. And I congratulate the honourable member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate among G7 nations. The UK has the lowest remaining levels of biodiversity, reducing our environments ability to support our society. It is possible, however, to combat biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. The UK is privileged to be home to many world leading zoos and conservation organisations, including in my own constituency of Chester, North and Neston, the wonderful and world renowned Chester Zoo, who have the expertise and experience in species conservation and habitat restoration to propel large scale ecological recovery projects.
I was pleased to learn of Chester Zoo's programme to reintroduce reintroduce more than 100,000 critically endangered Greater Bermuda land snails to the wild, saving the species from extinction after a small surviving population was discovered in an air conditioning unit. It's the efforts of conservationists like these that are essential to enriching ecosystems across the UK and the world, and it's these efforts that we must strive to support. Does the minister agree with me that supporting our world leading conservation sector is vital to ensuring the UK's long term security and climate resilience?
I was pleased to learn of Chester Zoo's programme to reintroduce reintroduce more than 100,000 critically endangered Greater Bermuda land snails to the wild, saving the species from extinction after a small surviving population was discovered in an air conditioning unit. It's the efforts of conservationists like these that are essential to enriching ecosystems across the UK and the world, and it's these efforts that we must strive to support. Does the minister agree with me that supporting our world leading conservation sector is vital to ensuring the UK's long term security and climate resilience?
15:41
15:41
15:41
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
It's been well pointed out that biodiversity is not just a nice thing to have. As sad as it is to see species going extinct and having a less rich world, that natural world that we're living in, it is absolutely vital to our food security, in particular when it comes to pollinators and how pollinators can affect crop failure. And it's been well documented that the number of insects and pollinators has been deteriorating in the UK and around the world over the last few years.
And in my limited time, I'll just highlight one reason for that, and something I'd like the government to work with us on as the availability of things like pet and flea, pet flea and tick treatments that are available over the counter in supermarkets, some of these products, there's fipronil, there's imidacloprid, these are banned from agricultural use because they are considered to be too dangerous to the environment. And yet they're available without a prescription, without any check for the need for them, and often being used without any clinical need.
So people are regularly treating animals that do not need treatment and they're using an inappropriate product. And this is being detected in waterways, in chalk streams. And that not only damages the entire ecosystem, especially the insects, but also the salmon that live in these chalk streams as well. So I've we've pushed the government on this before. I know the VMD are looking at this, but when we're in a debate about biodiversity, allowing people to purchase products in a supermarket that are banned from agricultural use seems to be completely irresponsible and needs to be stopped.
Rachael Maskell.
And in my limited time, I'll just highlight one reason for that, and something I'd like the government to work with us on as the availability of things like pet and flea, pet flea and tick treatments that are available over the counter in supermarkets, some of these products, there's fipronil, there's imidacloprid, these are banned from agricultural use because they are considered to be too dangerous to the environment. And yet they're available without a prescription, without any check for the need for them, and often being used without any clinical need.
So people are regularly treating animals that do not need treatment and they're using an inappropriate product. And this is being detected in waterways, in chalk streams. And that not only damages the entire ecosystem, especially the insects, but also the salmon that live in these chalk streams as well. So I've we've pushed the government on this before. I know the VMD are looking at this, but when we're in a debate about biodiversity, allowing people to purchase products in a supermarket that are banned from agricultural use seems to be completely irresponsible and needs to be stopped.
Rachael Maskell.
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
national security assessments, makes it absolutely clear that the political landscape has to change locally, nationally and internationally. We need to change the geo political processes and fora of which these issues are not only discussed but acted on, and we know the insufficiency of the emergency of our time dictates that we do that. So every conversation, every policy and every action must orientate towards saving our planet. The scale of collapse and the pace of collapse means that we have no choice, but it also creates an opportunity for us all .
If we can pull our country together, this one country that we need ourselves, our communities together to focus on the consumption that we have as we consume 1.6 planets at this time, but also to pull the nations together. We all live on this fragile planet which is disintegrating before our eyes. This is the opportunity to reset the clock, to ensure that we get that global stability, as well as that environmental stability to to ensure that all nations work together to save this planet earth.
Because if we don't already, we are seeing how intolerable it is, not least in the global South, but it's coming our way too. And therefore we can't prevaricate as we have over decades in the political space. But we must now convene and act to stop the multifaceted risks that we're seeing before our eyes to ensure that we we stick to the climate commitments of Paris and of course, to move faster to. As this planet is getting out of control with the disintegration and collapse that we're seeing at this time.
So will the minister talk to her colleagues to convene that new opportunity for geo political stability and hopefully , to save our planet? Roz
If we can pull our country together, this one country that we need ourselves, our communities together to focus on the consumption that we have as we consume 1.6 planets at this time, but also to pull the nations together. We all live on this fragile planet which is disintegrating before our eyes. This is the opportunity to reset the clock, to ensure that we get that global stability, as well as that environmental stability to to ensure that all nations work together to save this planet earth.
Because if we don't already, we are seeing how intolerable it is, not least in the global South, but it's coming our way too. And therefore we can't prevaricate as we have over decades in the political space. But we must now convene and act to stop the multifaceted risks that we're seeing before our eyes to ensure that we we stick to the climate commitments of Paris and of course, to move faster to. As this planet is getting out of control with the disintegration and collapse that we're seeing at this time.
So will the minister talk to her colleagues to convene that new opportunity for geo political stability and hopefully , to save our planet? Roz
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
Speaker 37
-
Speaker 37
Judgments with high confidence, high confidence that global ecosystems collapse threatens UK national security and prosperity, high confidence that every critical ecosystem on earth is on a pathway to collapse, high confidence that those ecosystems include those that underpin global food production. Yet the accountability is non-existent. The assessment doesn't live within the climate change risk assessment, so no minister has a legal duty to do anything about it. Under the previous national risk assessment, the government named an owner for each of the 61 identified risks, but this one has none.
Instead, everything the government has offered in response to the national security assessment is discretionary. The gaping hole in ownership is matched by one in funding. The government's own assessment places the annual value of ecosystem services to the UK at £87 billion. Yet for every £100 of annual value that nature provides to us, public biodiversity spending is barely £1.20. We wouldn't fund railways or hospitals or defence in this way.
The choice isn't between spending money on nature or saving money. By ignoring this assessment, it is whether we invest in resilience for our grandchildren or pass that considerable cost down to them when the consequences manifest. Yet ignoring the report feels precisely what the government is intending to do. It was published on the final day of an FOI internal review. After an initial refusal, it was pulled from a launch event.
We still don't have the unredacted version, so I would like to make three asks of the minister. Will she tell us who in government owns this risk? Secondly, when will the government publish a cross-government action plan in response to it? And thirdly, will ministers reconsider publication of the full assessment?
Instead, everything the government has offered in response to the national security assessment is discretionary. The gaping hole in ownership is matched by one in funding. The government's own assessment places the annual value of ecosystem services to the UK at £87 billion. Yet for every £100 of annual value that nature provides to us, public biodiversity spending is barely £1.20. We wouldn't fund railways or hospitals or defence in this way.
The choice isn't between spending money on nature or saving money. By ignoring this assessment, it is whether we invest in resilience for our grandchildren or pass that considerable cost down to them when the consequences manifest. Yet ignoring the report feels precisely what the government is intending to do. It was published on the final day of an FOI internal review. After an initial refusal, it was pulled from a launch event.
We still don't have the unredacted version, so I would like to make three asks of the minister. Will she tell us who in government owns this risk? Secondly, when will the government publish a cross-government action plan in response to it? And thirdly, will ministers reconsider publication of the full assessment?
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:47
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
And I congratulate the member for bringing this debate. Nature is screaming at us. Speaking to farmers last week, they told me just how alarmed they are at the situation. Of course, we've seen the wildfires, we've seen droughts suffer the disease, and we've seen the rupturing of glaciers. But as a society, we are guilty of ignoring the environmental degradation around us. We live in a belief that the environment can somehow absorb these economic changes.
But 70 years ago, I think it was that James 60 years ago, rather that James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis came up with the Gaia theory. And I think most of us know that the realization that we're losing species is contributing to the breakdown of our ecosystems. And if it was an economic supply chain, we would be acting immediately, just locally. I have the dumping of construction waste into Whitnash Brook. It's about the equivalent of an Olympic sized swimming pool every day.
We cannot allow this kind of degradation to continue. And as chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, raising this matter of great general resilience is a crucial thing, and I look forward to the report coming through from the National Resilience Committee, the Lords, later this year. But this report is significant and I believe is significant, as the stern report 20 years ago produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee. It is a stand out piece of work.
It is critical that we listen and act for our environment, our economy, our food security and our health. After all, despite the environmental resilience guarantees human resilience and we must ensure that we restore and preserve our planet.
But 70 years ago, I think it was that James 60 years ago, rather that James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis came up with the Gaia theory. And I think most of us know that the realization that we're losing species is contributing to the breakdown of our ecosystems. And if it was an economic supply chain, we would be acting immediately, just locally. I have the dumping of construction waste into Whitnash Brook. It's about the equivalent of an Olympic sized swimming pool every day.
We cannot allow this kind of degradation to continue. And as chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, raising this matter of great general resilience is a crucial thing, and I look forward to the report coming through from the National Resilience Committee, the Lords, later this year. But this report is significant and I believe is significant, as the stern report 20 years ago produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee. It is a stand out piece of work.
It is critical that we listen and act for our environment, our economy, our food security and our health. After all, despite the environmental resilience guarantees human resilience and we must ensure that we restore and preserve our planet.
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
Speaker 38
-
Speaker 38
under your chairmanship, and thanks to the member for Waveney Valley for proposing this important debate this year. In the midst of unnatural heatwaves and wildfires, I've so far attended five screenings of the national emergency briefing across my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, and it was both heartening at the same time concerning to see so many people of all ages coming together to agree on one thing, that something needs to be done about the environment and the impending disaster.
We are staring down. Those honest and open conversations are partly why I am so concerned that the government has so far refused to publish in full the nature security assessment. The public and Parliament deserve to see the full picture, especially with an issue with such significant implications for national security. Now camping as I did over the summer on the south coast in Dorset, it certainly felt and looked more like a scene out of out of Africa than the damp summer holidays I remember of my youth.
But this is not something to celebrate. As the national emergency briefing makes clear, a halt to the Gulf Stream could lead to Perishingly cold winters, as well as stifling summers elsewhere in the world. Life itself may become intolerable, leading to many more climate refugees to seek to come to our shores. The recent tragic events in Nepal resulting from climate driven glacial collapse emphasises the consequence of inaction. And we in the North, who invented the Industrial Revolution, which directly led to CO2 increases in the atmosphere, have a duty now to find and implement solutions for the future of human and indeed all life on this beautiful planet earth.
These should not be seen as costs, but instead as the best investments that we and the whole world can profit from. Thank you,
We are staring down. Those honest and open conversations are partly why I am so concerned that the government has so far refused to publish in full the nature security assessment. The public and Parliament deserve to see the full picture, especially with an issue with such significant implications for national security. Now camping as I did over the summer on the south coast in Dorset, it certainly felt and looked more like a scene out of out of Africa than the damp summer holidays I remember of my youth.
But this is not something to celebrate. As the national emergency briefing makes clear, a halt to the Gulf Stream could lead to Perishingly cold winters, as well as stifling summers elsewhere in the world. Life itself may become intolerable, leading to many more climate refugees to seek to come to our shores. The recent tragic events in Nepal resulting from climate driven glacial collapse emphasises the consequence of inaction. And we in the North, who invented the Industrial Revolution, which directly led to CO2 increases in the atmosphere, have a duty now to find and implement solutions for the future of human and indeed all life on this beautiful planet earth.
These should not be seen as costs, but instead as the best investments that we and the whole world can profit from. Thank you,
15:51
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Mary Gardiner. Of the. country's security and Intelligence community produced a report that told you how to save the world. You'd want to see it, right? Well, this report we're discussing today is not about how to save the world. It's about what happens if you don't. It's a very sober assessment of the risks that global biodiversity loss and the consequent ecosystem collapse poses to our human security. And that's why we were never meant to see it.
The previous administration considered it was just too alarming. Economic and security becomes more likely. Migration will rise as development gains reverse, serious organised crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. Pandemic risk will increase conflict and military escalation will become more likely. The nuclear threat will rise as clashes between nuclear powers become more frequent. These are the cold assessment of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and government was right to think they might scare people.
They scare me, but it was wrong to think they could hide it from the public. And it was even more wrong to fail to make the case and set out to the public the incredibly good news about how we can avoid these risks and create a world that looks much better than the one we currently inhabit. The CBD cop in coming up in Yerevan, will look at the 23 targets of the global biodiversity framework. They set out the pattern for what we can do to change all this, and what happens if we actually achieve that? Our air is cleaner, our water is pure, our energy is cheaper, our health is better, our economy is richer, and our world is safer.
What's not to like?
The previous administration considered it was just too alarming. Economic and security becomes more likely. Migration will rise as development gains reverse, serious organised crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. Pandemic risk will increase conflict and military escalation will become more likely. The nuclear threat will rise as clashes between nuclear powers become more frequent. These are the cold assessment of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and government was right to think they might scare people.
They scare me, but it was wrong to think they could hide it from the public. And it was even more wrong to fail to make the case and set out to the public the incredibly good news about how we can avoid these risks and create a world that looks much better than the one we currently inhabit. The CBD cop in coming up in Yerevan, will look at the 23 targets of the global biodiversity framework. They set out the pattern for what we can do to change all this, and what happens if we actually achieve that? Our air is cleaner, our water is pure, our energy is cheaper, our health is better, our economy is richer, and our world is safer.
What's not to like?
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
inundated with constituents writing to me on this, explaining in great lengths their concerns with climate change and their fears for the future, the existential risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss at home and abroad is a common feature of their concerns. Wildfires across Devon, as well as in Stourbridge, have caused a loss of biodiversity in a catastrophic way. It's therefore no surprise my constituents have told me how reading this biodiversity report has made them worry for the future, their fear for what will happen to the world as a whole, and our national security if this report is allowed to come true.
I've been consulting across my Newton Abbot constituency for many months now to hear their concerns face to face, including by attending as many screenings as possible to the People's Emergency Briefing, which I encourage the Minister to see, also held a local climate assembly with my constituents, which was an important step in hearing how I can work with them to share their concerns, and together we can work on long term and sustainable solutions to biodiversity and ecosystem collapse, albeit only locally.
The report makes for very worrying reading. One constituent told me that the briefing goes far beyond anything she had feared for the future, and she was frightened for the real and imminent global risks we face from climate change and biodiversity loss. Whilst the report is a worst case scenario situation of what could happen without action, the very suggestion that this is a possibility should worry us all, I will.
I've been consulting across my Newton Abbot constituency for many months now to hear their concerns face to face, including by attending as many screenings as possible to the People's Emergency Briefing, which I encourage the Minister to see, also held a local climate assembly with my constituents, which was an important step in hearing how I can work with them to share their concerns, and together we can work on long term and sustainable solutions to biodiversity and ecosystem collapse, albeit only locally.
The report makes for very worrying reading. One constituent told me that the briefing goes far beyond anything she had feared for the future, and she was frightened for the real and imminent global risks we face from climate change and biodiversity loss. Whilst the report is a worst case scenario situation of what could happen without action, the very suggestion that this is a possibility should worry us all, I will.
15:54
15:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We both live near the University of Exeter, and Professor Neil Adger, from the university talked about the risks and limits of a securitization framing of nature and biodiversity. The idea that this is really a global problem of our biosphere, but not a national security problem. What does he think? Does he see this as a people's emergency or a national emergency?
15:55
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I think it's an emergency on every level. I think it's a local, regional, national, international and global emergency happening both in climate and biodiversity at the same time, which is why we need action now. The report mentions radical change to farmland usage, but farmers need government support for this. I recently discussed this very issue with a constituent of mine whose great knowledge on sustainable farming initiatives, and he proposed a joined up approach of farmers to work together on a thousand acre challenge to research and develop sustainable farmland programs.
This is the kind of issue that we must be developing now before it is too late, and I urge the minister to work on this. I hope the minister will listen to the concerns I and many other colleagues have raised today, and take urgent action to protect our ecosystems and promote sustainability globally for years to come.
This is the kind of issue that we must be developing now before it is too late, and I urge the minister to work on this. I hope the minister will listen to the concerns I and many other colleagues have raised today, and take urgent action to protect our ecosystems and promote sustainability globally for years to come.
15:56
15:56
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
Waves and wildfires we've seen across Europe this summer the destruction caused by glacier collapse and catastrophic flooding in Nepal and Tibet. The message is becoming impossible to ignore . The consequences of climate change and environmental degradation are real, not some distant future threat. As the National Security Risk Assessment says, climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption poses risks not just for the environment but for our economy, our security and our way of life. Climate and nature.
Shocks are rising faster, harder and more systematically than many other economic systems were designed to handle. And we see this in four main ways physical risks including floods, wildfires, droughts and storms. Transition risks as economies move away from high carbon industries, nature related risks affecting food production and natural resources, and systemic risks where where shocks spread rapidly across sectors and markets. For many years, conversations about green finance prime focus on corporate social responsibility.
Today, it's equally about resilience and risk management. The UK is very well placed to lead on this, but I fear that we're not doing as much as we could do. Finally, Sir Desmond, I want to draw attention to the fact that I'm vice chair of the all party group on Tibet. What is happening in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau is one of the clearest examples of climate risk unfolding today. These glaciers of the Third Pole function as Asia's water tower, feeding major river systems that support nearly 2 billion people.
When rising temperatures accelerate glacial melt, the consequences extend far beyond the mountains. It's not simply an environmental catastrophe. It's about infrastructure resilience, water security, energy security and economic stability across the entire region. It is entirely the kind of systemic risk that modern resilience finance should help countries anticipate and manage. So can I conclude by asking the minister who will be attending Cop 17 and whether we'll make sure that we are showing that leadership on global resilience there.
Shocks are rising faster, harder and more systematically than many other economic systems were designed to handle. And we see this in four main ways physical risks including floods, wildfires, droughts and storms. Transition risks as economies move away from high carbon industries, nature related risks affecting food production and natural resources, and systemic risks where where shocks spread rapidly across sectors and markets. For many years, conversations about green finance prime focus on corporate social responsibility.
Today, it's equally about resilience and risk management. The UK is very well placed to lead on this, but I fear that we're not doing as much as we could do. Finally, Sir Desmond, I want to draw attention to the fact that I'm vice chair of the all party group on Tibet. What is happening in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau is one of the clearest examples of climate risk unfolding today. These glaciers of the Third Pole function as Asia's water tower, feeding major river systems that support nearly 2 billion people.
When rising temperatures accelerate glacial melt, the consequences extend far beyond the mountains. It's not simply an environmental catastrophe. It's about infrastructure resilience, water security, energy security and economic stability across the entire region. It is entirely the kind of systemic risk that modern resilience finance should help countries anticipate and manage. So can I conclude by asking the minister who will be attending Cop 17 and whether we'll make sure that we are showing that leadership on global resilience there.
15:58
15:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm a pleasure to serve on your chair. Thank you. Thank you to the honourable member for Waveney Valley for setting the scene. We must not overlook the nature of security as national security, as a person of faith, which you are. Mr. Chair, I'm guided by the profound principle of stewardship. We have a God given responsibility to tend, to serve, to protect creation, to hand it down to our children and in my case, to my grandchildren.
The global statistics are eye opening. We've seen a decline in monitored wildlife populations over the last 50 years. This is an issue not just for conservationists, but it's an existential threat to global stability, unraveling, unraveling the complex biological safety net that regulates our climate, purifies our water, and pollinates our crops. Biodiversity loss accelerates climate breakdown, destroys agricultural land, creates resource scarcity. When water runs dry, crops fall and fail, and vulnerable regions conflict indefinitely.
Follows. Can I make a point for my constituency of Strangford, where the hard working farmers, the fishing sector and the conservationists have put together, I believe, a rich biodiversity and supports local economies and resilience. Right across Strangford we're seeing superb front line stewardship work being done on the ground, adopting nature friendly farming practices. Local conservation projects are working tirelessly to protect nature species and restore vital peatlands, which act as a crucial carbon sink.
And we cannot allow environmental protection to become an unaffordable luxury or an undue tax burden on the very people keeping our communities afloat. So I urge I put one question to them. I wish her well. By the way, you've got quite a an endurance test today. I urge the minister today to outline how the government is integrating nature risk into our strategic defence frameworks. We do need a comprehensive and national nature security assessment that backs a brilliant stewardship we see in Strangford.
While strictly safeguarding the financial resilience of our hard pressed families. Thank you.
The global statistics are eye opening. We've seen a decline in monitored wildlife populations over the last 50 years. This is an issue not just for conservationists, but it's an existential threat to global stability, unraveling, unraveling the complex biological safety net that regulates our climate, purifies our water, and pollinates our crops. Biodiversity loss accelerates climate breakdown, destroys agricultural land, creates resource scarcity. When water runs dry, crops fall and fail, and vulnerable regions conflict indefinitely.
Follows. Can I make a point for my constituency of Strangford, where the hard working farmers, the fishing sector and the conservationists have put together, I believe, a rich biodiversity and supports local economies and resilience. Right across Strangford we're seeing superb front line stewardship work being done on the ground, adopting nature friendly farming practices. Local conservation projects are working tirelessly to protect nature species and restore vital peatlands, which act as a crucial carbon sink.
And we cannot allow environmental protection to become an unaffordable luxury or an undue tax burden on the very people keeping our communities afloat. So I urge I put one question to them. I wish her well. By the way, you've got quite a an endurance test today. I urge the minister today to outline how the government is integrating nature risk into our strategic defence frameworks. We do need a comprehensive and national nature security assessment that backs a brilliant stewardship we see in Strangford.
While strictly safeguarding the financial resilience of our hard pressed families. Thank you.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
you, Sir Desmond. It's an honour to serve with you and the chair, and I congratulate the honourable member for Waveney Valley on securing this important debate. Disappointingly, this heavily abridged report didn't reach the chamber in government time, and when it was finally released, the timing coincided with Davos dominating the headlines. That raises questions about how seriously this government takes its own reports, warning that nature is a foundation of national security and can no longer be treated in isolation from it.
Yes, of course.
Yes, of course.
16:00
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She's making a very good point about the seriousness of this issue. And would it would she agree with me that a great way of government showing they understand that seriousness is to publish a report in full and to agree to a national broadcast of the National Emergency briefing?
16:00
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with him because the report describes a collapse of interconnected natural systems reaching a point of no return, the loss of climate regulation destroying harvests in the world's breadbasket regions, triggering famine, disease and mass migration, driving up food prices and poverty. Here in the UK, with 77% of land in England and Wales farmed or managed by farmers, and over 800 farms in Glastonbury and Somerton alone, we already know who would be best placed to lead our investment in long term biodiversity resilience.
Yes I will.
Yes I will.
16:01
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
She makes. She makes a really good point. When I speak to farmers in Edinburgh South West, often they feel that they're the problem when it comes to biodiversity and protecting it. But in fact they are. They are the solution, and we should be doing all we can to support the government, to support farmers, to help protect our environment.
16:01
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
Absolutely, I absolutely agree, and it brings me on to my next point. Martin Lines of the Nature Friendly Farming Network puts it that healthy soils, water functioning systems should be treated as critical national infrastructure. He argues for more spongy landscapes, healthier soils, wetlands, ponds and trees that hold water buffering both drought and flooding, while still supporting food production. Sir Desmond with Defra budget cuts slashing the farming budget by more than £100 million and uncertainty over future support systems, many are disincentivized from the environmental role that their own survival depends on.
We know that nature friendly farming can bring real ecological improvement now the Lang partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative and nature friendly farming methods for more than 30 years, showing what's possible when farmers are committed to work with nature rather than against it. But it needs widespread adaption and adoption to work now. The Elms scheme should be a vital roadmap to a resilient farming sector, but there's been a lack of investment in higher tier schemes, which will deliver the best outcomes for nature.
Now, this is why the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion of cash injection into the farming budget, properly phased to target where where it helps nature the most and help farmers boost food security rather than allowing them to fall through the gaps. Yes I will.
We know that nature friendly farming can bring real ecological improvement now the Lang partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative and nature friendly farming methods for more than 30 years, showing what's possible when farmers are committed to work with nature rather than against it. But it needs widespread adaption and adoption to work now. The Elms scheme should be a vital roadmap to a resilient farming sector, but there's been a lack of investment in higher tier schemes, which will deliver the best outcomes for nature.
Now, this is why the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion of cash injection into the farming budget, properly phased to target where where it helps nature the most and help farmers boost food security rather than allowing them to fall through the gaps. Yes I will.
16:03
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
I'm very. grateful to the honourable. member for giving way. There are a number of particularly rare and unique landscapes across the country, such as the Brecks in my own constituency. Would she support calls for increased funding for specific landscapes impacted by climate change and biodiversity loss?
16:03
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
I thank my honourable friend. I can call him that as he sits on the select committee with me, and I do agree with him. But, Sir Desmond, this summer's drought has put farmers under severe financial pressure. Potato farmer in my constituency, James Pullan, of Perrins Hill Farm in Tintinhull, told me that he expects to be 200 zero zero £0 down on his potato sales this year. In a good year, his crop averages around 25 tons to the acre, but this year it would be closer to 20 tonnes.
With potatoes badly bruised or simply failing to grow. Now, I'm grateful for the recently announced drought support for farmers, but we need real action that prevents ecosystem collapse and the heightened risk this poses for our food security. We also need investment to hold water on farm reservoirs and also fire ponds. Nature based solutions to water scarcity that irrigate the land during prolonged drought and help communities battle wildfires. Yet farm reservoirs aren't being built quickly enough to meet demand as they are being held back by abstraction licences, planning permission, cost implications, uncertain grants and limited contractor availability.
Now, I recently visited. I won't if she doesn't mind, because I think we've got quite a lot to to get through now. I recently visited Wessex Water's constructed wetland at Shapwick Heath in my. Hon. Friend the. For Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. At 21 hectares, it's the largest water treatment wetland of its kind in the UK, filtering forever chemicals, phosphates and microplastics from our water whilst boosting flood resilience and supporting Somerset's biodiversity.
Now Wessex Water is currently upgrading their sewage treatment plant, which will remove 100 170 tonnes of phosphates over the next ten years. Now, to put this into context, the 18,000 homes across Somerset currently stuck in a planning moratorium due to the nutrient neutrality regulations, would only produce three tonnes of phosphate. So this clearly demonstrates what nature based solutions can bring to the future of water management and nutrient neutrality. Sir Desmond Somerset is increasingly exposed to devastating flooding that impacts farmers and homeowners alike, and I was really happy to secure £50 million of flood defence funding for Somerset earlier this year, and I welcome Somerset Council agreeing to ring fence some of these funds to target nature based solutions that work in conjunction with hard engineering, river maintenance across high risk catchments, restoring natural hydrology upstream while protecting communities and infrastructure downstream.
And I'm also pleased that a major element of the programme will be the Councils My Community programme, empowering local communities with bespoke bureaucratic bureaucracy, cutting support, creating shared action on the ground. Now Sir Desmond peatlands like those in the Somerset Levels and Moors provide vital species, habitats, flood alleviation and water filtration. Yet across the UK, over 80% of peatlands are damaged. Now. Somerset is one of the one of only two counties still extracting peat with licences to 2042, despite the levels and moors storing an estimated 11 million tonnes of carbon, equivalent to ten years of the county's emission.
Now, my horticultural Peat Bill sought to end the sale of peat, building on local efforts already underway with companies like Dustin's near Street and Rocket Grove growing peat free compost ranges. Now I congratulate the minister in her new role, but I would be grateful for clarity on on peat issues. Will there be a dedicated funding scheme for peatland restoration? Once the nature for Climate Peatland grant scheme ends next year? And will she go further and provide a timeline on when the government will seek to end the sale of horticultural peat? Sir Desmond habitat destruction also impacts insect life, like the shrill carder bee, one of the UK's rarest bumblebees, it has retreated from its historic stronghold on the Somerset Levels and Moors to a depleting population around Somerton Castle, Kerry and Ham Hill.
The numbers have collapsed from around 140 in 2015 to just 7 in 2022. Only five of 22 biodiversity indicators show long term improvement and 13 are still deteriorating. So does the minister accept the government's current approach? Is failing to meet its own Environmental Act targets and new action? And what new action will change that trajectory? Central to this, this failure to protect habitats is planning policy. Government must adopt a strategic spatial approach to planning that protects the UK's most important places for nature, supporting, not undermining environmental regulation and championing nature friendly design in house building and infrastructure.
From the outset. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed and voted against Labour's Planning and Infrastructure Act. Now, if the government is expecting 75,000 of its 1.5 million home targets to be delivered in Somerset, they must be fit for the future now. I visited Bradfords Building Supplies in Glastonbury recently to discuss exactly this how we make our homes resilient to changing climate, preparing for extreme heat in summer and flooding in winter, including making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments.
We cannot keep building homes for yesterday's climate. Government planning policy needs to catch up. I won't, just for time. We're also calling on the loopholes in the biodiversity net gain system to be closed, extending how long net gain habitats, net gain habitat habitat must be maintained from 30 years to 120 years, and raising the requirement for major developments on larger greenfield sites from 10% to 100%. The case could not be starker.
The Green Finance Institute puts the potential economic hit from nature degradation at equivalent of 12% of GDP. This is more than twice the impact of the 2008 financial crash. So to conclude, Sir Desmond, this report was published in January. Half a year on, we already. We've already had. We've already seen the devastation that this year's climate crisis has brought to the UK. So would the minister confirm if Defra and the Joint Intelligence Committee will reclassify the food security risk as high? Publish the full assessment as originally intended and act with the urgency it deserves, including through an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament.
With potatoes badly bruised or simply failing to grow. Now, I'm grateful for the recently announced drought support for farmers, but we need real action that prevents ecosystem collapse and the heightened risk this poses for our food security. We also need investment to hold water on farm reservoirs and also fire ponds. Nature based solutions to water scarcity that irrigate the land during prolonged drought and help communities battle wildfires. Yet farm reservoirs aren't being built quickly enough to meet demand as they are being held back by abstraction licences, planning permission, cost implications, uncertain grants and limited contractor availability.
Now, I recently visited. I won't if she doesn't mind, because I think we've got quite a lot to to get through now. I recently visited Wessex Water's constructed wetland at Shapwick Heath in my. Hon. Friend the. For Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. At 21 hectares, it's the largest water treatment wetland of its kind in the UK, filtering forever chemicals, phosphates and microplastics from our water whilst boosting flood resilience and supporting Somerset's biodiversity.
Now Wessex Water is currently upgrading their sewage treatment plant, which will remove 100 170 tonnes of phosphates over the next ten years. Now, to put this into context, the 18,000 homes across Somerset currently stuck in a planning moratorium due to the nutrient neutrality regulations, would only produce three tonnes of phosphate. So this clearly demonstrates what nature based solutions can bring to the future of water management and nutrient neutrality. Sir Desmond Somerset is increasingly exposed to devastating flooding that impacts farmers and homeowners alike, and I was really happy to secure £50 million of flood defence funding for Somerset earlier this year, and I welcome Somerset Council agreeing to ring fence some of these funds to target nature based solutions that work in conjunction with hard engineering, river maintenance across high risk catchments, restoring natural hydrology upstream while protecting communities and infrastructure downstream.
And I'm also pleased that a major element of the programme will be the Councils My Community programme, empowering local communities with bespoke bureaucratic bureaucracy, cutting support, creating shared action on the ground. Now Sir Desmond peatlands like those in the Somerset Levels and Moors provide vital species, habitats, flood alleviation and water filtration. Yet across the UK, over 80% of peatlands are damaged. Now. Somerset is one of the one of only two counties still extracting peat with licences to 2042, despite the levels and moors storing an estimated 11 million tonnes of carbon, equivalent to ten years of the county's emission.
Now, my horticultural Peat Bill sought to end the sale of peat, building on local efforts already underway with companies like Dustin's near Street and Rocket Grove growing peat free compost ranges. Now I congratulate the minister in her new role, but I would be grateful for clarity on on peat issues. Will there be a dedicated funding scheme for peatland restoration? Once the nature for Climate Peatland grant scheme ends next year? And will she go further and provide a timeline on when the government will seek to end the sale of horticultural peat? Sir Desmond habitat destruction also impacts insect life, like the shrill carder bee, one of the UK's rarest bumblebees, it has retreated from its historic stronghold on the Somerset Levels and Moors to a depleting population around Somerton Castle, Kerry and Ham Hill.
The numbers have collapsed from around 140 in 2015 to just 7 in 2022. Only five of 22 biodiversity indicators show long term improvement and 13 are still deteriorating. So does the minister accept the government's current approach? Is failing to meet its own Environmental Act targets and new action? And what new action will change that trajectory? Central to this, this failure to protect habitats is planning policy. Government must adopt a strategic spatial approach to planning that protects the UK's most important places for nature, supporting, not undermining environmental regulation and championing nature friendly design in house building and infrastructure.
From the outset. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed and voted against Labour's Planning and Infrastructure Act. Now, if the government is expecting 75,000 of its 1.5 million home targets to be delivered in Somerset, they must be fit for the future now. I visited Bradfords Building Supplies in Glastonbury recently to discuss exactly this how we make our homes resilient to changing climate, preparing for extreme heat in summer and flooding in winter, including making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments.
We cannot keep building homes for yesterday's climate. Government planning policy needs to catch up. I won't, just for time. We're also calling on the loopholes in the biodiversity net gain system to be closed, extending how long net gain habitats, net gain habitat habitat must be maintained from 30 years to 120 years, and raising the requirement for major developments on larger greenfield sites from 10% to 100%. The case could not be starker.
The Green Finance Institute puts the potential economic hit from nature degradation at equivalent of 12% of GDP. This is more than twice the impact of the 2008 financial crash. So to conclude, Sir Desmond, this report was published in January. Half a year on, we already. We've already had. We've already seen the devastation that this year's climate crisis has brought to the UK. So would the minister confirm if Defra and the Joint Intelligence Committee will reclassify the food security risk as high? Publish the full assessment as originally intended and act with the urgency it deserves, including through an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament.
16:10
16:10
Speaker 42
-
Speaker 42
Thank you, Sir Desmond. It's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Can I congratulate the honourable member for Waveney Valley for bringing forward this important debate, and can I welcome the minister to her place? I would normally go through some of the contributions today, but we've had powerful contributions. It would take all of my allocated time to name check everyone's constituencies. But basically the take home message is, has been the importance of protecting our precious planet from the existential threats that we face from climate change.
Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems is very close to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents, and is crucial to national security. As the MP for Epping Forest, I'm privileged to see and experience the many benefits of biodiversity in our ancient woodland and beyond as the heart of lung and lungs of north east London and our part of Essex. Epping Forest hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran veteran trees and is home to ten bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species.
I want to see the flora and fauna of Epping Forest and wider to flourish and thrive, yet water security, air quality and climate change, to name just three. Risks threaten biodiversity and ecosystems domestically and globally, which is why this report we are debating today is an important wake up call. The last conservative government's Environment Act in 2021 established legally binding targets, including increasing species abundance, so that by 2042 it is greater than 2022 and at least 10% greater than 2032.
And to restore or create more than 500 000 hectares of wildlife rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. Our Conservative Environment Improvement Plan also built on that act, committing to protect 30% of our land and our sea by 2030. Supporting the Cop15 global target, we agreed to protect 30% of global land and global ocean. The security assessment we are debating, published by the current government in January of this year, outlined the immense risks that biodiversity loss and ecological degradation both is having and will have unless we take action.
It was disappointing that it took an FOI request from the Green Alliance to see the government publish this report in this abridged form. This is clearly something the government didn't want us to see in full, and I asked the minister what the government's plans are about letting us see it is in full. Nevertheless, turning to what was published, the report looks at global factors such as food supply chains, but is important that the government's approach to supporting biodiversity and ecosystems is not siloed between action abroad and action domestically, but it is instead is joint in its approach.
International action to address biodiversity must not solely sit within the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office, but must be coordinated with Defra and tie into the UK's domestic agenda to boost supply chains and ecosystems. Here, the report identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. We must all keep this at the forefront of our minds. This debate is considering national security and keeping the UK, our families, homes and livelihoods safe. National security should always be the first and foremost duty of any government.
Now, one of the reasons the threats identified in the report are very different to some other national security threats is the unpredictable behaviour of some natural events, such as the extreme weather events we are seeing both in the UK and globally, and we've heard them powerfully articulated today in the UK. This summer, we have experienced one of the worst droughts in history. Over two thirds of England, approximately 71% was in drought following the driest July since 1836.
In my constituency in Epping Forest, the extreme heat facing the rest of the country was made worse by thousands of my constituents being left without running water this summer for about a week due to unacceptable Thames water outages for several days, facing hours of long queues for bottled water or waiting anxiously for priority service delivery with little certainty that they would receive any at all. With warmer summers expected as the norm. I would appreciate the Minister assuring my constituents and everyone's constituents they are taking steps to ensure they are integrating planning for warm weather into the very heart of our water industry's operations, so they are not left exposed in such vulnerable positions.
In the future, the government should also be supporting farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing marketing for volatility. But sadly, the government have voted for the family farm tax, the fertiliser tax now something that is very pertinent to this debate today, with the report touching. Indeed. Sir Desmond on UK fertiliser resilience, the double cab pickup tax, the increased National Insurance contributions for employers. All of these actions have not only caused serious economic and cash flow problems for farms, but have also damaged job opportunities for young people coming into agriculture.
Why is this so important? Because in the UK, our UK farmers are fantastic. Farmers are custodians of approximately 70% of the UK's land. Failing to support farmers is failing to support nature and biodiversity in the UK, which is both unforgivable and incredibly short sighted. Farmers are pivotal to our UK food security. The report says that without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.
Therefore, once again and in a sadly recurring theme, when the government should be supporting our family farms to help feed the nation and bolster our food security. Under this current government, there has been a record number of farm closures. Sadly, when it comes to biosecurity, something intrinsically linked with our food security yet again, the current government have been slow throughout their tenure. In 17 times of my asking in Parliament were needed before the government provided anywhere close to the money needed to complete the rebuild of the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters.
And they continue to preside over an illegal meat imports crisis at our borders. Now, this. In the last couple of years, Europe has seen foot and mouth on the continent, and African swine fever is advancing up the continent. While, as we have heard today, and there was a statement this morning, bluetongue virus is surging in the UK and poses a specific threat in the context of climate change , as the virus is rapidly multiplying up in the midge vector, whose range is advancing northwards.
Leaving us exposed to these threats is reckless. This report that we're debating is a much needed wake up call to the government, who seem to be sadly asleep at the wheel. A report of this kind should have prompted an immediate response. Yet we have seen in Defra that this government does not seem to move with speed. This must change. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made today, but more than anything, I would like a guarantee that there will be coordination across government to bolster ecosystems internationally and in the UK.
Defra must play a leading role in this work, and I really hope that the Prime Minister's comments yesterday about how he rates Defra in terms of government departments is something that he misspoke about. Defra should be at the heart of government in terms of protecting our country, feeding our country and looking after our precious environment. I would appreciate the Minister to confirm that coordinated policy also needs us to be using every tool at our disposal, and here I would urge the government to recognise the important role that zoos play in conservation.
We've heard that from the honourable member opposite today zoos like Chester and London, through species reintroduction and habitat restoration, do so much to help fight species decline, and they need to be used to our full advantage to meet biodiversity targets. In conclusion, Sir Desmond, when ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions across the globe, and as the report states, the world could be on a path towards geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.
The government mustn't stand and sit idle in this. I ask them to act.
Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems is very close to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents, and is crucial to national security. As the MP for Epping Forest, I'm privileged to see and experience the many benefits of biodiversity in our ancient woodland and beyond as the heart of lung and lungs of north east London and our part of Essex. Epping Forest hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran veteran trees and is home to ten bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species.
I want to see the flora and fauna of Epping Forest and wider to flourish and thrive, yet water security, air quality and climate change, to name just three. Risks threaten biodiversity and ecosystems domestically and globally, which is why this report we are debating today is an important wake up call. The last conservative government's Environment Act in 2021 established legally binding targets, including increasing species abundance, so that by 2042 it is greater than 2022 and at least 10% greater than 2032.
And to restore or create more than 500 000 hectares of wildlife rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. Our Conservative Environment Improvement Plan also built on that act, committing to protect 30% of our land and our sea by 2030. Supporting the Cop15 global target, we agreed to protect 30% of global land and global ocean. The security assessment we are debating, published by the current government in January of this year, outlined the immense risks that biodiversity loss and ecological degradation both is having and will have unless we take action.
It was disappointing that it took an FOI request from the Green Alliance to see the government publish this report in this abridged form. This is clearly something the government didn't want us to see in full, and I asked the minister what the government's plans are about letting us see it is in full. Nevertheless, turning to what was published, the report looks at global factors such as food supply chains, but is important that the government's approach to supporting biodiversity and ecosystems is not siloed between action abroad and action domestically, but it is instead is joint in its approach.
International action to address biodiversity must not solely sit within the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office, but must be coordinated with Defra and tie into the UK's domestic agenda to boost supply chains and ecosystems. Here, the report identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. We must all keep this at the forefront of our minds. This debate is considering national security and keeping the UK, our families, homes and livelihoods safe. National security should always be the first and foremost duty of any government.
Now, one of the reasons the threats identified in the report are very different to some other national security threats is the unpredictable behaviour of some natural events, such as the extreme weather events we are seeing both in the UK and globally, and we've heard them powerfully articulated today in the UK. This summer, we have experienced one of the worst droughts in history. Over two thirds of England, approximately 71% was in drought following the driest July since 1836.
In my constituency in Epping Forest, the extreme heat facing the rest of the country was made worse by thousands of my constituents being left without running water this summer for about a week due to unacceptable Thames water outages for several days, facing hours of long queues for bottled water or waiting anxiously for priority service delivery with little certainty that they would receive any at all. With warmer summers expected as the norm. I would appreciate the Minister assuring my constituents and everyone's constituents they are taking steps to ensure they are integrating planning for warm weather into the very heart of our water industry's operations, so they are not left exposed in such vulnerable positions.
In the future, the government should also be supporting farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing marketing for volatility. But sadly, the government have voted for the family farm tax, the fertiliser tax now something that is very pertinent to this debate today, with the report touching. Indeed. Sir Desmond on UK fertiliser resilience, the double cab pickup tax, the increased National Insurance contributions for employers. All of these actions have not only caused serious economic and cash flow problems for farms, but have also damaged job opportunities for young people coming into agriculture.
Why is this so important? Because in the UK, our UK farmers are fantastic. Farmers are custodians of approximately 70% of the UK's land. Failing to support farmers is failing to support nature and biodiversity in the UK, which is both unforgivable and incredibly short sighted. Farmers are pivotal to our UK food security. The report says that without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.
Therefore, once again and in a sadly recurring theme, when the government should be supporting our family farms to help feed the nation and bolster our food security. Under this current government, there has been a record number of farm closures. Sadly, when it comes to biosecurity, something intrinsically linked with our food security yet again, the current government have been slow throughout their tenure. In 17 times of my asking in Parliament were needed before the government provided anywhere close to the money needed to complete the rebuild of the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters.
And they continue to preside over an illegal meat imports crisis at our borders. Now, this. In the last couple of years, Europe has seen foot and mouth on the continent, and African swine fever is advancing up the continent. While, as we have heard today, and there was a statement this morning, bluetongue virus is surging in the UK and poses a specific threat in the context of climate change , as the virus is rapidly multiplying up in the midge vector, whose range is advancing northwards.
Leaving us exposed to these threats is reckless. This report that we're debating is a much needed wake up call to the government, who seem to be sadly asleep at the wheel. A report of this kind should have prompted an immediate response. Yet we have seen in Defra that this government does not seem to move with speed. This must change. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made today, but more than anything, I would like a guarantee that there will be coordination across government to bolster ecosystems internationally and in the UK.
Defra must play a leading role in this work, and I really hope that the Prime Minister's comments yesterday about how he rates Defra in terms of government departments is something that he misspoke about. Defra should be at the heart of government in terms of protecting our country, feeding our country and looking after our precious environment. I would appreciate the Minister to confirm that coordinated policy also needs us to be using every tool at our disposal, and here I would urge the government to recognise the important role that zoos play in conservation.
We've heard that from the honourable member opposite today zoos like Chester and London, through species reintroduction and habitat restoration, do so much to help fight species decline, and they need to be used to our full advantage to meet biodiversity targets. In conclusion, Sir Desmond, when ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions across the globe, and as the report states, the world could be on a path towards geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.
The government mustn't stand and sit idle in this. I ask them to act.
16:18
16:18
Speaker 43
-
Speaker 43
Can I start my opening remarks by congratulating the honourable member, my constituency neighbour, on securing this incredibly important debate? I'd also like to thank all the honourable members for their powerful and thoughtful contributions, and I'm very aware that many of them didn't get in the space of time to make the contributions they'd like to do. However, in the interest of time, I won't be taking interventions myself, but I'm more than happy if you write to me after this to get back to you in writing in full after this dissipates.
Now I'll start by addressing the honourable member for Waveney Valley's point on the status of the assessment and the material behind it. And I know that was an issue that was raised by a number of members across the House. Now, as my predecessor outlined in some detail to him, the Environmental Audit Committee in July. It is standard and given practice that government does not comment on speculation about different drafts or versions. That position hasn't changed.
As I stand before you today, nor will it likely change tomorrow. So with that in mind, it is far more important that I focus my response today on the critical themes raised in today's debate. Publishing this assessment was clearly vital. So the Parliament, the public and our international partners can see its core findings. Those findings are clear by loss and ecosystem degradation pose a real risk to security, resilience and prosperity.
We cannot, and this government will not shy away from the real challenges this creates. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this government is the first government leading this country to have both a climate minister and a nature minister, reflecting, I hope, the seriousness to which this government places on the climate change and nature security. I have long said that net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin when it comes to tackling climate change, and this assessment highlights the critical role nature plays in our ability to tackle climate crisis.
We can, of course, not fight this greatest challenge alone, and so many members raise this in the debate today. Climate change and nature don't abide by rules of borders. Working to implement advice raised through this assessment requires leadership at home and abroad, working with our international partners to strengthen food security, biosecurity, global supply chain resilience and international cooperation. As many members have highlighted, the findings of the assessment are stark.
Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity. This is not an environmental issue alone. It is a systemic risk to the UK's resilience and long term security of so many members articulated. The UK's food security and economic resilience depend on healthy ecosystems at home and overseas. Nearly 40% of our food is imported, and for as long as we continue to enjoy bananas, rice, kiwis and avocados, we will never realistically be able to rely on domestic food production alone, meaning we are at heightened risk of environmental pressures overseas, disrupting our supply chains, increasing prices and reducing resilience here in the UK.
Now, this isn't an isolated finding. The Economic Forum, the World Economic Forum's Global Risk Report in 2026 identified itself that extreme weather as the most severe global risk over the next decade, with environmental risks accounting for five of the ten highest ranked long term risks. This assessment suggests that the domestic nature related risk could reduce reduce UK GDP by around 6% by the 2030s, with a further 6% reduction arising from international risks transmitted through global supply chain.
In some scenarios, the conclusion of our assessment is extraordinarily clear and should leave no one in any doubt. Nature security is national security and nature stability is global stability. Responsible governments identify emerging risks early , strengthen preparedness, and build resilience before shocks occur, and this government is determined to rise to that responsibility. Now, other political parties may tell you simply to sit back and enjoy a rapidly changing climate, as we've heard over the summer from the case of reform.
But we will not put our heads in the sand and give up on taking these threats head on, as others across the aisle sadly seem determined to do. It is important to stress that this assessment is not forecast nor a prediction. It is a forward looking assessment designed to help the government plan for potential shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation, including disruption to food systems, supply chains and economic stability. Its purpose is to help us to anticipate these risks, test our resilience and take appropriate action.
And that's exactly what this assessment is doing. It is looking around the corners rather than relying on the rear view mirror. It is worth stressing that in fact, the UK is doing something important via this assessment that many that other countries aren't. By creating, publishing and today debating this assessment, we are a global front runner in discussing nature security. Our assessment is the first published national security assessment of its kind in the world .
After we published this assessment, the UK presentations at the OECD have resulted in several global partners using our approach to understand and consider how ecosystems related risks affect their own resilience and national security. Later this month, the Foreign Secretary will bring foreign ministers together at the United Nations to discuss how to respond to climate and nature security threats. The Nature Security Assessment will provide an important evidence base for those conversations. I recognise this is a critical juncture for nature, and we will continue to use up and coming international opportunities to make that case for protecting nature and tackling climate change.
That goes hand in hand because a healthy ecosystem underpins resilience, security and prosperity. Now, turning to this government's response, we have launched the first ever Task Force on National Security and Resilience, risks of a changing Climate and Nature loss, bringing together leading security, military and academic experts to help government identify, prioritise, prioritise risks, strengthen cross-government coordination and turn evidence in practical into practical action. The task force launched in June this year and provide independent challenge and recommendations to ensure climate and nature risks are considered more systemically across national security and resilience planning.
Separately, we have commissioned a three year nature security research and development programme to improve indicators for early warning, emerging risks, capability and analytic tools. This will help government identify these risks earlier. Stress test resilience and take preventative action before disruption escalates. Now, a number of members on all sides spoke about the importance of the food sector to national security and the functioning that the UK has recognized through its designation as a critical national infrastructure.
Defra works closely with the Cabinet Office and other government departments to strengthen preparedness resilience across food systems and supply chains. We are also investing more than £2.7 billion a year in farming and nature recovery, supporting resilient domestic food production, healthier soils, pollinators and nature friendly farming. This assessment makes clear that severe ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence of novel farm diseases. We are acting to bring down the risk that poses strengthening resilience to these risks.
Through the UK Biological Security Strategy, enhanced disease surveillance and a one health approach that recognises the links between environmental, animal and human health. This improves our ability to identify, assess and respond to emerging biological threats. This government is also addressing nature related risks at source through the International Climate Finance Programme, and I know climate markets and green finance again was was mentioned by a number across the debate. The UK's international climate finance strategy places nature at its core, investing in the protection, restoration of forests, ocean fresh water and other critical ecosystems that support global stability.
It was mentioned right at the beginning, but I am also delighted to confirm that today the government has announced it intends to invest £400 million into Tropical Forest Forever facility. The TFF represents a critical evolution in forest finance, providing long term support for tropical forest protection. I am sure that members will recognise that investing in forests is one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate and nature crisis, and support UK growth and security.
Now, as honourable members from across the House have acknowledged, this assessment has made clear that nature loss can impact food security, water security, economic resilience and national security. We are taking these findings seriously. There is no single department that can address them alone, and that is why we are working across government to ensure a coordinated response. These are global challenges, but they are being felt close to home. The recent wildfire had. Dunwich Heath in Suffolk was in my own constituency, and it was a stark reminder to me that the environmental risks are no longer distant nor abstract, and that we must build resilience here in the UK as well as overseas, whether through restoring restoring nearly 23,000 hectares of peatland since 2020.
Store carbon and I was delighted to visit my honourable friend, the member for Derbyshire Dales recently on a visit to look at the work that we're doing the UK is doing to restore and invest in our peatlands, and that plays a vital role not just in managing nature, restoring nature, but also helping to tackle the threat of wildfires. The work that we're doing, in addition to support farmers through farming, nature friendly farming schemes, delivering our environmental improvement plans, we are taking practical action at home alongside our international efforts abroad.
Can I again thank the honourable member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate and the continued interest of the House in this agenda.
Now I'll start by addressing the honourable member for Waveney Valley's point on the status of the assessment and the material behind it. And I know that was an issue that was raised by a number of members across the House. Now, as my predecessor outlined in some detail to him, the Environmental Audit Committee in July. It is standard and given practice that government does not comment on speculation about different drafts or versions. That position hasn't changed.
As I stand before you today, nor will it likely change tomorrow. So with that in mind, it is far more important that I focus my response today on the critical themes raised in today's debate. Publishing this assessment was clearly vital. So the Parliament, the public and our international partners can see its core findings. Those findings are clear by loss and ecosystem degradation pose a real risk to security, resilience and prosperity.
We cannot, and this government will not shy away from the real challenges this creates. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this government is the first government leading this country to have both a climate minister and a nature minister, reflecting, I hope, the seriousness to which this government places on the climate change and nature security. I have long said that net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin when it comes to tackling climate change, and this assessment highlights the critical role nature plays in our ability to tackle climate crisis.
We can, of course, not fight this greatest challenge alone, and so many members raise this in the debate today. Climate change and nature don't abide by rules of borders. Working to implement advice raised through this assessment requires leadership at home and abroad, working with our international partners to strengthen food security, biosecurity, global supply chain resilience and international cooperation. As many members have highlighted, the findings of the assessment are stark.
Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity. This is not an environmental issue alone. It is a systemic risk to the UK's resilience and long term security of so many members articulated. The UK's food security and economic resilience depend on healthy ecosystems at home and overseas. Nearly 40% of our food is imported, and for as long as we continue to enjoy bananas, rice, kiwis and avocados, we will never realistically be able to rely on domestic food production alone, meaning we are at heightened risk of environmental pressures overseas, disrupting our supply chains, increasing prices and reducing resilience here in the UK.
Now, this isn't an isolated finding. The Economic Forum, the World Economic Forum's Global Risk Report in 2026 identified itself that extreme weather as the most severe global risk over the next decade, with environmental risks accounting for five of the ten highest ranked long term risks. This assessment suggests that the domestic nature related risk could reduce reduce UK GDP by around 6% by the 2030s, with a further 6% reduction arising from international risks transmitted through global supply chain.
In some scenarios, the conclusion of our assessment is extraordinarily clear and should leave no one in any doubt. Nature security is national security and nature stability is global stability. Responsible governments identify emerging risks early , strengthen preparedness, and build resilience before shocks occur, and this government is determined to rise to that responsibility. Now, other political parties may tell you simply to sit back and enjoy a rapidly changing climate, as we've heard over the summer from the case of reform.
But we will not put our heads in the sand and give up on taking these threats head on, as others across the aisle sadly seem determined to do. It is important to stress that this assessment is not forecast nor a prediction. It is a forward looking assessment designed to help the government plan for potential shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation, including disruption to food systems, supply chains and economic stability. Its purpose is to help us to anticipate these risks, test our resilience and take appropriate action.
And that's exactly what this assessment is doing. It is looking around the corners rather than relying on the rear view mirror. It is worth stressing that in fact, the UK is doing something important via this assessment that many that other countries aren't. By creating, publishing and today debating this assessment, we are a global front runner in discussing nature security. Our assessment is the first published national security assessment of its kind in the world .
After we published this assessment, the UK presentations at the OECD have resulted in several global partners using our approach to understand and consider how ecosystems related risks affect their own resilience and national security. Later this month, the Foreign Secretary will bring foreign ministers together at the United Nations to discuss how to respond to climate and nature security threats. The Nature Security Assessment will provide an important evidence base for those conversations. I recognise this is a critical juncture for nature, and we will continue to use up and coming international opportunities to make that case for protecting nature and tackling climate change.
That goes hand in hand because a healthy ecosystem underpins resilience, security and prosperity. Now, turning to this government's response, we have launched the first ever Task Force on National Security and Resilience, risks of a changing Climate and Nature loss, bringing together leading security, military and academic experts to help government identify, prioritise, prioritise risks, strengthen cross-government coordination and turn evidence in practical into practical action. The task force launched in June this year and provide independent challenge and recommendations to ensure climate and nature risks are considered more systemically across national security and resilience planning.
Separately, we have commissioned a three year nature security research and development programme to improve indicators for early warning, emerging risks, capability and analytic tools. This will help government identify these risks earlier. Stress test resilience and take preventative action before disruption escalates. Now, a number of members on all sides spoke about the importance of the food sector to national security and the functioning that the UK has recognized through its designation as a critical national infrastructure.
Defra works closely with the Cabinet Office and other government departments to strengthen preparedness resilience across food systems and supply chains. We are also investing more than £2.7 billion a year in farming and nature recovery, supporting resilient domestic food production, healthier soils, pollinators and nature friendly farming. This assessment makes clear that severe ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence of novel farm diseases. We are acting to bring down the risk that poses strengthening resilience to these risks.
Through the UK Biological Security Strategy, enhanced disease surveillance and a one health approach that recognises the links between environmental, animal and human health. This improves our ability to identify, assess and respond to emerging biological threats. This government is also addressing nature related risks at source through the International Climate Finance Programme, and I know climate markets and green finance again was was mentioned by a number across the debate. The UK's international climate finance strategy places nature at its core, investing in the protection, restoration of forests, ocean fresh water and other critical ecosystems that support global stability.
It was mentioned right at the beginning, but I am also delighted to confirm that today the government has announced it intends to invest £400 million into Tropical Forest Forever facility. The TFF represents a critical evolution in forest finance, providing long term support for tropical forest protection. I am sure that members will recognise that investing in forests is one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate and nature crisis, and support UK growth and security.
Now, as honourable members from across the House have acknowledged, this assessment has made clear that nature loss can impact food security, water security, economic resilience and national security. We are taking these findings seriously. There is no single department that can address them alone, and that is why we are working across government to ensure a coordinated response. These are global challenges, but they are being felt close to home. The recent wildfire had. Dunwich Heath in Suffolk was in my own constituency, and it was a stark reminder to me that the environmental risks are no longer distant nor abstract, and that we must build resilience here in the UK as well as overseas, whether through restoring restoring nearly 23,000 hectares of peatland since 2020.
Store carbon and I was delighted to visit my honourable friend, the member for Derbyshire Dales recently on a visit to look at the work that we're doing the UK is doing to restore and invest in our peatlands, and that plays a vital role not just in managing nature, restoring nature, but also helping to tackle the threat of wildfires. The work that we're doing, in addition to support farmers through farming, nature friendly farming schemes, delivering our environmental improvement plans, we are taking practical action at home alongside our international efforts abroad.
Can I again thank the honourable member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate and the continued interest of the House in this agenda.
16:29
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
The question is that this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security. Those are that are of that opinion, say I . Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order! The sitting stands adjourned.