Disability Benefits

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

The question is, That this House has considered personal independence payment and other disability benefits.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mrs Latham.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

There is not time—there is no time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered personal independence payment and other disability benefits.

Cavity Wall Insulation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for leading the debate. Things are different in Northern Ireland, and it is not the Minister’s responsibility to reply for Northern Ireland, but I wanted to come along to support the hon. Lady in her request for justice. Ultimately, that is what she is looking for: justice for her constituent. Hon. Members who speak after me will be seeking justice, too. The scheme was for England, Scotland and Wales—the Northern Ireland scheme is different—but I support the hon. Lady.

In my research for this speech, I read the background information, and today I have listened to the hon. Lady’s comments about the despair that some people feel. She referred to one lady who was unable to sleep for 10 nights, such was her trauma and concern. That level of concern was financial, ultimately, and she was presented with a huge bill. We have heard about figures of £17,000, £25,000 or £35,000, which indicate just how worrying the issue can be. People do not understand why they are in that position, because that was not what they signed up for.

The hon. Member for Halifax was right to set the scene. She described the financial ruin that her constituents have faced, with unexpected legal bills running to tens of thousands of pounds. Without doubt, more needs to be done to support those families and protect people from such schemes in future. It is not only about helping people with the problems that they have today, but about ensuring that such things do not happen again. [Interruption.] I think there must be something wrong with the plumbing, Mrs Latham: there is definitely a background noise. Whatever it might be, I am sure that it will not silence me or anyone else.

It is important that all constituents have good access to thermal insulation to prevent heat loss in their home. I will give some examples about our heat loss and cavity wall insulation schemes in Northern Ireland. We were able to sort the problems out, by the way, and we did not have individual companies soliciting round the doors for no-win, no-fee representation. There is no doubt that the insulation process is expensive, and many will struggle to pay for it. The Government need to be commended for what they do: it is incredible that we have schemes to enable people to upgrade their homes and ensure that they have the levels of insulation and heating that we all need.

Schemes are offered across the United Kingdom to ensure that those on a low income can avail themselves of cavity wall insulation. The schemes are different across the United Kingdom, as I have intimated. Beginning in 2013, the Government’s energy company obligation has required large energy suppliers to pay for energy-saving measures in British households that meet certain conditions, covering wall and loft insulation. We have different schemes back home: a cavity wall insulation scheme and a roof insulation scheme. The new schemes are offered through the Housing Executive and sometimes through local councils. The ECO scheme covers England, Scotland and Wales, and it is no surprise that we have differing circumstances in Northern Ireland; we often do. We have a scheme that seems to be working well, and whenever there are indiscretions or things do not fall into place, we have been quite able—so far, anyway—to come up with solutions.

Northern Ireland has a sustainable energy programme, which was set up by the utility regulator. Some 80% of the funding has been targeted at vulnerable customers and at those who are older or on a low income. It is important that we enable those people to bring their houses up to a standard such that they can avail themselves of the same energy savings and efficiencies, as well as helpful cavity wall and roof insulation. It is great that those most in need of assistance are getting it.

In my office, I deal every week with people applying for the cavity wall insulation scheme that we have in Northern Ireland, the sustainable energy programme. We have been successful in enabling people to get on it; we just wish there were a wee bit more financial aid available. Now that the Northern Ireland Assembly is back, that responsibility will fall on the shoulders of the Assembly and of the Department that looks after these matters. In my constituency of Strangford and in my main town of Newtownards, many of the homes are of a certain age and standard, so they need the cavity wall insulation schemes. The Housing Executive is the major provider of homes, although the Housing Association provides homes now, some of which are old as well.

With some cavity wall insulation schemes, we have seen examples of insulation not even being put into the walls, although people said it was. We have also seen cavity wall insulation having a detrimental effect, as the hon. Member for Halifax noted. I am not quite sure of the reasons for that, but ultimately we have been able to sort those things out because the companies involved have an obligation to deliver what is right and what is proper.

The priority is to ensure that the Government properly back those schemes to ensure that they are being done legitimately, and that constituencies like Halifax are not being lumped with thousands of pounds of fees to pay back. There certainly must be justice for those who were victims of the scheme. I am pleased that many of them have already contacted the legal ombudsman and the financial services ombudsman to question the level of service that was provided. When it gets to the stage of contacting an ombudsman, we hope for recourse, justice, restitution and ultimately compensation for the people who have been part of that process.

I thank the hon. Member for Halifax again for leading the debate. She should know that she has my full support in this matter; she has the support of all of us in this room, and that is why we are here today. I hope that the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), will be in a position to offer some support and answer some of the questions that the hon. Lady posed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must now step in to right the wrongs and ensure that people are protected financially. I believe that that is their obligation. That is why we are here: I am here to support the hon. Lady and support her constituent. Other Members who will speak in this Chamber want the same justice.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

I am sorry for the buzzing noise that we can hear in the background. The Doorkeepers have contacted the engineers, and they are going to address the issue. Meanwhile, it is quite difficult to hear—I cannot hear from the Chair what is being said—so can people speak up so everybody can hear?

Mariana Dam Disaster

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been informed that there is a group action in the High Court relating to the Mariana dam incident, so I remind hon. Members that they must not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts in order not to prejudice these proceedings.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Mariana dam disaster.

I spoke to the Clerks beforehand and I understand the issue very well. I will not refer to specific cases and I am sure that others will not either.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate and say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate and to raise my concerns about the ongoing situation in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. It is deeply concerning and requires urgent attention by the United Kingdom Government and the wider international community.

The debate is about how British companies conduct themselves around the world and whether they should implement the high environmental and safety standards overseas that we expect of them at home. It is also about how we hold companies headquartered in London to account when they do not live up to the standards that they claim to uphold, as well as accountability and the process in relation to a disaster that happened many years ago, and how we can help the people who are still seeking justice.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I understand that today’s matter is not in his portfolio and that he is filling in because the relevant Minister is overseas, but it is always a pleasure to see him. I know that he, his Department and the officials who are here will carry back the questions that we ask. I am sure that all those who participate will have their questions answered directly by the relevant Minister on his return. Even though this issue is not in this Minister’s portfolio, I know that he shares my passion for doing the right thing by our neighbours and using resources in the best way.

I want to bring to the House’s attention the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam at the Samarco Mariana mine complex in the state of Minas Gerais, which killed 19 people and released 40 million cubic metres of tailings that polluted waterways, spanning an area the length of Portugal—more than 600 km. That puts it into perspective when we think of the distance of the impact and the people affected. It is more than the distance between where we are sitting in Westminster Hall and my Strangford constituency, and my journey from Belfast City airport to Heathrow on Monday and returning tonight. I travel on that plane at massive speed and the flight takes an hour, from Northern Ireland across the south-east of England.

The Mariana dam disaster was the biggest environmental disaster ever inflicted on the people of Brazil. One company, BHP, was headquartered in London at the time and played a key role in the dam disaster.

I thank the Library for its information—I realise that it is not always easy to prepare for these debates—and I wish to quantify the serious ecological damage that the disaster produced. There were mass die-offs among fish: once the mud reached the open ocean, a total of some 29,000 fish carcases were collected and recorded by the federal police. The death of the fish also resulted in hundreds of birds dying from starvation, and probably also from eating infected fish. A Wilson Centre article explains that, in addition to the loss of native fauna,

“80 percent of the native vegetation located near the tributaries and main channel of the Doce River was destroyed, leaving the river with only 13 percent of the Atlantic forest’s original vegetation.”

Reuters reported in November 2021 that a study undertaken by a company contacted by the Brazilian prosecutor to measure the cost of the disaster estimated the “socio-environmental” damage to be between US$6.73 billion—or 37.6 billion reais—and US$10.85 billion. That gives some idea of the impact and shows that it affected not only people’s lives and jobs, but the environment.

The disaster severely affected the indigenous communities, including the Krenak, by irreparably damaging their river source—the communities’ lifeblood—the Rio Doce. Like others, I had the privilege of meeting victims from the Krenak indigenous community earlier this year in Parliament. With the help of global law firm Pogust Goodhead, they are bringing a case against BHP in London, alongside more than 700,000 victims affected by the Mariana dam disaster. The claimants include individuals, Brazilian municipalities and local churches, all of whom suffered loss as a result. Those human beings lost all they own, their schools, their education, where they worship and their normal lives. The disaster has changed their lives forever.

Right hon. and hon. Members may ask why this disaster should be debated in this House. It is for a simple reason: this is an important step in bringing real justice for the victims of the Mariana dam disaster, and it will create a precedent for victims abroad to initiate claims against UK-based parent companies for environmental damage and human rights abuses before English courts. That would make the companies accountable and responsible, and that is the way it should be.

The tailings dam that collapsed was owned and operated by Samarco, a Brazilian company jointly owned by Vale and the Anglo-Australian mining company, BHP. At the time of the accident, BHP was dual-listed in London and Sydney—a fact that allowed the victims the necessary legal standing to begin proceedings here in London. After all those years, it is only right that the matter should be spoken about.

Moreover, as representatives of the Krenak community told me, this case is not just about BHP and the disaster; it is a more general story. For too long, some multinational corporations based in the UK, the EU and the US have damaged the environment and communities in other parts of the world without providing full compensation. I cannot help but feel that if British or Australian communities had been impacted by such a disaster, they would not have been treated in the same way. Indeed, it would have been sorted a long time ago.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

Order. We have to be very careful about taking about specific cases. They are going to the courts, or are in the courts, and therefore we must not talk about them.

[Jim Shannon]

I believe it is important not just to highlight the legal case but to fully recognise the victims. Nineteen people lost their lives, and as I said to the officials before the debate, I want to read out their names to honour the victims of the Mariana dam disaster. You will have to forgive me, Mrs Latham, because my Ulster Scots accent means that the pronunciation may be a challenge for me, but it is only right to do this. I will just mention their first and last names; the names in between are a challenge, and I want to be respectful. I hope hon. Members see past my stumbling and hear what is meant to be heard. These are people whose families are grieving at this very moment in Brazil.

The names are: Cláudio Fiúza, 40 years old; Sileno de Lima, 47 years old; Waldemir Leandro, 48 years old; Emanuely Vitória, five years old; Thiago Santos, seven years old; Marcos Xavier, 32 years old; Marcos Moura, 34 years old; Samuel Albino, 34 years old; Mateus Fernandes, 29 years old; Edinaldo de Assis; Daniel Carvalho, 53 years old; Maria Lucas, 60 years old; Maria Celestino, 64 years old; Claudemir Santos, 40 years old; Pedro Lopes, 56 years old; Antônio de Souza, 73 years old; Vando dos Santos, 37 years old; Ailton dos Santos, 55 years old; and Edmirson Pessoa, 48 years old.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and for speaking to those who petitioned us earlier this year. I thank Members for listening and recognising those names for the record. For the people of Brazil and around the world, such disasters must never be forgotten, lest we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The people of Brazil believe that the disaster could have been avoided. The London Mining Network’s 2017 report, “The River is Dead”, states:

“Since the beginning of the operation, in 2008, the Fundão Dam had presented several anomalies related to drainage defects, upwelling, mud and water management errors and saturation of sandy material. In some cases, emergency measures had been required.”

But the project continued and production levels were kept high until the disaster.

This lawsuit is one of the largest of its kind in terms of the damages to the victims in Brazil, but so far, only £2.8 billion has been ringfenced to cover the liability for the disaster. In the past three years, there have been a further 12 incidents at mining sites around the world involving the collapse of tailings or waste facilities. Progress has been made in setting a global industry standard for tailings management, but only a third of companies with tailings dams have committed to implementing it. This is while the industry continues to make ambitious sustainability commitments and claims over environmental, social and governance credentials.

A report by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, after some of its members visited Brazil, registered concern about appropriate levels of “accountability and responsibility” and “affected communities” and how the companies deal with local people, including those affected by tailings dams. The report also said:

“Nearly seven years after the dam collapse, the end of these reparations and compensation is nowhere in sight.”

I know the Minister cannot answer this directly, but I am hopeful that he will be able to help the victims and ensure that, after seven years, the issue of cost, reparations and compensation can be addressed. I am also pleased to see both shadow Ministers—the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—here and I look forward to their contributions.

Companies running large operations worldwide need to be accountable, including through subsidiaries. My first question to the Minister is this: does he agree that the handling of the Mariana dam disaster is a model for company crisis management? If the Minister cannot answer that, I am happy for him to write to me. Many of the companies refer to social value as bringing people and resources together to build a better world. The continued reluctance of some companies to provide compensation for this disaster and for other disasters across the world must be rectified. We are asking for that through this debate. This has a clear impact on the lives of those people and on the environment of the country. As I said, the impacts of the disaster travelled an area equivalent to the length of Portugal.

I believe that the UK has an important role here. It can lead the way by including stronger accountability mechanisms for UK corporations operating both domestically and internationally to help protect against human rights abuses and protect our fragile environment. We all love our environment and wish to see it retained. It is also imperative that, as the host country to large companies, investors and markets relevant to mining and metals, the United Kingdom enshrines in law the global industry standard for tailings management.

It is vital that changes are enforced to prevent such terrible disasters from happening again and causing such devastation to the world’s natural environment. The after-effects will remain for a long time; indeed, some are changed forever. Will the Government recognise that the UK has a vital role in stopping such disasters ever happening again? Will my Government and my Minister take action to crack down on British companies that fail to live up to their social and environmental credentials at home and abroad?

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

Aortic Dissection: Patient Pathways and Research Funding

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. After many applications, I am delighted to have secured an opportunity to have this very important debate. Hon. Members may be aware that this is an extremely difficult and personal topic for me, but I hope that sharing my experiences will prompt action that could save lives in the future.

I will begin with a case study, which happens to be my personal story, then move on to what we do in this place to improve patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection. Before I do so, I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee of the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, a charity that I helped to set up.

In the early hours of 11 December 2018, I received a phone call that no mother would ever want. I was told that our son Ben had died. Four years later, we all still feel numb. It seems implausible that Ben, a gregarious 44-year-old with two children and a loving wife, will not simply walk back into our lives. Ben died after suffering an aortic dissection. He had been feeling unwell the previous day, but was sent home after spending four hours in A&E and told to return the next day if he did not feel better. Tragically, the emergency doctors had not understood his symptoms and had not come up with a diagnosis.

Aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta, the body’s largest artery, which carries blood from the heart to the brain, limbs and vital organs. It is a condition that affects approximately 4,000 people a year in the UK and, like Ben, almost all of them are unaware that they have it. Half of them—almost 2,000 people—die soon after the dissection occurs, which is more than die from road traffic accidents in this country. Five hundred of those who die reach hospital, but sadly, as in Ben’s case, their condition is not diagnosed quickly enough, or at all. The other 1,500 die almost immediately after the acute event.

Many of these deaths are preventable. With proactive genetic screening for family members of those who have suffered an aortic dissection and with better treatment of high blood pressure, many of these deaths could be avoided. I am delighted to learn today that the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has announced a fund of £175 million for cutting-edge genomics. As a charity, we would be happy to work with the Department on this issue.

I have to admit that, like most people, I knew nothing about aortic dissection before Ben died, but knowing what a gap his death has left in our family I have immersed myself in efforts to prevent other tragedies. In late 2020, with the eminent cardiac surgeon Graham Cooper and the long-time aortic dissection campaigner, patient and public voice co-ordinator of the NHS cardiac clinical reference group, Catherine Fowler, whose father died in Ireland from this condition, I helped to set up the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust. I am delighted that Graham and Catherine are in the Gallery and listening to the debate. The trust is now a leading UK-registered charity that aims to unite patients, families and the medical community. Our mission is to improve diagnosis, increase survival rates and reduce disability caused by aortic dissection.

Our work encompasses the whole patient pathway, from prevention to diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and support for all those living with aortic dissection. So far, the charity has designed and delivered accredited education events reaching over 3,000 medical professionals, and produced a fantastic set of patient resource videos to support those living with aortic dissection and their families. Instrumental in creating the videos was “Whispering” Bob Harris, who has suffered an aortic dissection and given up a huge amount of time to be an ambassador for the charity. I am delighted that Bob is also in the Gallery today.

The charity has created an online learning portal for the medical community, with learning modules that cover all the multidisciplinary aspects, in order to improve education on aortic dissection in the medical community, and ultimately to improve patient experiences and outcomes. The free and accessible learning portal, produced with experts in the field of aortic dissection, will be launched this week. We have also attended a number of medical conferences and presented to cardiac specialists and emergency medicine doctors, most recently in October at the European Emergency Medicine Congress 2022 in Berlin. We have designed and delivered national all-day education symposiums to establish learning communities and to increase knowledge and education for paramedics, emergency medics and surgeons in Scotland, Ireland and England, with many more such events planned. I have to say that the “we” are mainly the other trustees, because I am very much the junior and more silent trustee of the partnership.

The charity has also worked with NHS England and a group of clinical experts on the design of the aortic dissection toolkit. Seven key principles have now been established, setting out best practice for the patient pathways from the point of treatment through to diagnosis. We are delighted that the toolkit has reached the implementation phase, and the charity is actively supporting this critical phase by working with the regions that have reached out to the charity for support.

The charity has also launched research grants to fund research into how we can better diagnose and treat aortic dissection. For my part, I have sought to raise the issue in the House of Commons, including at Prime Minister’s questions in March and since then in meetings with Ministers. I thank the Minister responding to the debate for her commitment to aortic dissection and for having taken the time to meet the charity trustees last month.

In almost two years, the charity has had a big impact, but there is much more that we can do to save 2,000 lives a year in this country. I would like to set out some of the important changes we would like to see. So far, I have spoken about 2,000 deaths a year and 4,000 cases of aortic dissection, but a worrying statistic is that as our population ages, we expect to see about 7,000 cases of aortic dissection every year by 2050. It is crucial that we take steps now to improve the patient pathway, to ensure that as few of these cases as possible are fatal.

It is surprising but true that there is a lack of detailed and accurate data regarding the incidence, treatment and patient outcomes for acute aortic dissection in England. That is particularly true for patients like Ben, who do not reach a specialist treatment centre alive. Such data would assist in understanding the true scale of the problem and where any interventions might be directed. Of course our family understands that, even if he had been diagnosed, Ben might not have survived the catastrophic event, which happened in the middle of the night, but our passion to learn more about why he died seems to have highlighted gaps in the system, which, if filled, will help others. The least we can do is to press for that to be so. No child deserves to have their mother or father taken away, no wife should be bereft at the sudden loss of a husband, and no parents should have to bury their son.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly passionate and personal contribution to the House. We all recognise that this is a subject very close to her heart, and we recognise her passion and commitment.

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that all parties work together to make this better.

First, I encourage the Minister to see what more can be done to increase and improve data collection around aortic dissection, to make as much of the data as possible publicly available to assist with clinical research. Secondly, I would like to focus on improvements that we can make to the patient pathway. The single most important improvement is in diagnosis. For those accurately diagnosed, more than 80% survive.

I will come back to how we can focus research funding. For now, I would like to emphasise that increased research funding for diagnosis is required. The other improvement on diagnosis that the Government can make is to ensure that doctors in emergency departments receive adequate training and advice on the symptoms of aortic dissection and how to spot a potential case. A freedom of information request recently showed that only half of NHS trusts  had a policy or procedure concerning the diagnosis of aortic dissection in the emergency department and that only a small proportion used the guidelines from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine or from the Royal College of Radiologists. The charity is doing a huge amount to educate medical professionals. Can the Minister comment on what central guidance has been made available from the NHS for emergency departments?

The launch of the NHS aortic dissection toolkit, which I mentioned, is incredibly important, but it only covers the patient pathway from the point of diagnosis to treatment and does not cover diagnosis itself. Can the Minister commit to considering extending that toolkit or working with experts and the charity to design and develop a new toolkit for diagnosis of aortic dissection, which can be rolled out in all emergency medicine settings around the country?

Great British Railways Headquarters: Derby’s Bid

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Derby’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Efford. I also warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. The beauty of being a Back Bencher, with no ministerial responsibility—I have to add that I have never wanted that responsibility—is that we can do anything that we want to do. We can campaign for things that matter to us and we can be successful—sometimes—in those campaigns. Yesterday I was delighted to hear the Third Reading in the House of Lords of my Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, and we should get Royal Assent today or tomorrow, so that is a tremendous success for a Back Bencher. I have been passionate about that issue for many years, so it was a great delight to do that. Another of my passions was to get Derby designated the city of culture. Sadly, I failed miserably on that. As a team in Derby, we campaigned together, but we did not make it.

My other campaign is to get the Great British Railways headquarters to Derby. I have been talking about that for some time in Parliament and I am passionate that Derby is the right place for it to be situated. Sadly, we do not have many right hon. and hon. Members with us today to take part in this debate—probably because the House sat so late last night and 9.30 on a Wednesday morning is not people’s favourite time to come in—but I am passionate about the headquarters coming to Derby. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established the competition, which he announced last year, to find the place that will host the headquarters of Great British Railways. Derby has submitted its bid and is eagerly waiting to find out whether it will succeed in making it through to the second round. Then there will be even more lobbying, but with a much-anticipated public vote.

I firmly believe, as you would expect, Mr Efford, that Derby is the right location for the headquarters. There are many reasons why it is an important place for Great British Railways and why the Minister and the Secretary of State should choose Derby for its headquarters. First, Derby is at the centre of the UK’s rail network. It has great connections north and south, from Scotland to London and beyond, and, crucially, east and west, offering a key path from the east midlands to the west midlands and Wales, as well as to the east coast.

Secondly, Derby has so much rail history. Derby station first opened in 1839, as one of the largest in the United Kingdom, when Derby was home to the world’s first factory and the Midland Railway. As soon as the railway arrived in Derby, the rail industry set up shop there, too. Derby locomotive works was constructed in 1840 and, in the years that followed, nearly 3,000 steam engines were built. The first ever roundhouse, for turning engines, was built by Robert Stephenson in Derby. It is part of what is now Derby College. [Interruption.] I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). From 1934, Derby produced diesels, and then in 1947 it built Britain’s first main-line diesel locomotives. Now, we are at the forefront of developing alternative train-based power sources that complement the progressive roll-out of electrification. HydroFLEX, Britain’s first train converted to hydrogen operation, was designed in Derby by Porterbrook.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her dedication to all the subject matter on which she has delivered the legislation coming through on marriage. I support that and was very pleased to see it. I also commend her for her work in this area. Connectivity is critical but does she agree that that is also true of the private sector, of which I believe Derby has a large proportion? Connectivity is part of the pursuit of the headquarters of Great British Railways, but the partnership with the private sector is crucial to advancing it.

The hon. Lady mentioned hydrogen. We in Northern Ireland have some connections with hydrogen and we are pleased that she is promoting it. All I know about Derby is that it has a football team that is in trouble, but I am pleased to come here and support the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It never fails to amaze me how the hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland can have an interest in what is happening in Derby. It is very important that we include the whole of the United Kingdom and work with all of it when and if we get the Great British Railways in Derby. It is important that Northern Ireland, Scotland and all the other regions are included, so I thank him for that intervention.

Alstom, which has had various names and iterations, is the current train building company in Derby, and it plans to build the first brand-new fleet of hydrogen trains in conjunction with Eversholt Rail. Similarly, Porterbrook and Rolls-Royce recently launched the first 100 mph hybrid battery-diesel train on Chiltern Railways, which links London with Oxford and Birmingham. It is very important that we look to our history, but that we also look to the future of the Great British Railways and rail innovation.

Derby is at the heart of rail innovation. It is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation.

[Mrs Latham]

We have the expertise in Derby and it is important that we spread it around. If the Great British Railways comes to Derby, it will benefit Nottingham and other counties, including Staffordshire and Leicestershire, because we are quite a tight-knit community. There are so many innovative companies based in and around Derby that it will have a knock-on benefit for so many people and the local economy. It is really important, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that we have thriving private businesses working with Government organisations. Working together, they can achieve so much more. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

We continue to be the home of rail research, as has been said. In 1935, the LMS Scientific Research Laboratory was established in Derby, which evolved into British Rail’s globally recognised Railway Technical Centre that opened in 1964, and that tradition of innovation continues today through special rail consultancies, dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises, and the University of Derby’s rail research and innovation centre, so there is a host of reasons why the Minister must choose Derby.

Derby is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation. There are more than 11,000 rail sector employees in Derbyshire, spanning operations, design, manufacture, testing, safety, data and finance. Nowhere else in the whole country can we design, test and manufacture a train all on the same site. Not only that, but alongside the University of Derby, our rail industry is leading the way on rail decarbonisation—a huge part of our country’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050. In addition to these practical reasons why Derby is the best choice, I would like to talk about the longer-term impact of such a decision, and how it fits in with the Government’s policy aims. First, for GBR, choosing Derby brings the opportunity to engage more closely than ever with the private sector. Last year, the Williams-Shapps plan for rail laid out clearly the Government’s intention for GBR to work ever more closely with the private sector, learning lessons and fostering innovation.

As I have explained, there is no better place for interaction with the private sector than Derbyshire, whether seeking to collaborate with the largest rail companies in the land, or to learn from and help to develop the most innovative engineering or railway technology businesses. I know I need not repeat, for the Minister has heard me make the point many times, that Derby is home to the largest private sector rail industry cluster in Europe, and the associated benefits that that would bring to our public sector rail body.

The east midlands is the rail capital of the UK, with a global reputation for excellence. I would like to quote the Government’s rail sector deal:

“The east midlands is one of the largest rail clusters in Europe…The success of UK rail will owe much to the successful nurturing of these clusters.”

In the recently published levelling-up White Paper, the midlands rail cluster is referred to as one of the largest in the world, incorporating rail operations, research and innovation, digital applications, manufacturing, technical services and finance.

Derby and Derbyshire, along with the whole of the east midlands, are often left behind when it comes to public funding. Levelling up is a phrase we have heard a lot recently, and it is really important for Derby. We have heard Ministers and the Prime Minister talking about it, but I would like to see it delivered for Derby. We must be clear that levelling up is about taking advantage of the talents and skills all around the country, not just about giving a handout. That is why bringing GBR to Derby really is levelling up. Placing the headquarters of Great British Railways at the heart of the largest railway cluster in Europe is an example of the Government taking advantage of the amazing skillset and industry knowledge that we have in abundance in the east midlands, which for so long have been overlooked.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has been wide-reaching in the debate for Derby, but we can all take advantage. The Government and the Minister have given their commitment to levelling up across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady referred to that, which I fully support. Within that levelling up, there may be opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to buy into the levelling up that Derby can take advantage of. Does the hon. Lady feel that, when it comes to securing the Union, which we can do as we are all committed to that, levelling up is part of that process?

[Mrs Latham]

It is important that levelling up works for the whole country, and that we genuinely level up. We need a lot of levelling up in our region, and it is important for the Government to do what they say.

Alongside that, we will have the opportunity for many apprentices and to improve skills we already have. It is amazing that at Alstom, which builds the trains, there are some fantastic female apprentices. They are not straight from school; they have worked outside and come in as apprentices. They are so passionate about building trains and making it right. We have the workforce who want to do the job. With Great British Railways, and all the other businesses in Derby, we could provide an apprenticeship for everybody, because there are so many opportunities with so many different businesses in the area. It is incredibly important—

Automated External Defibrillators: Public Access

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention about the importance of councillors, which I will return to, such as the friend of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Communities lead on such matters.

There are many defibrillators across great parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Bill legislates so that everyone must have one in place. There is no cost to the Government; the Bill just puts in place the necessity to do it, rather than saying that it must come from community activities or otherwise.

To give an example from my constituency, in Newtownards some of the shop owners got together and spent £1,000 on a defibrillator, which is available on the high street in the middle of town. Every school in Northern Ireland has a defibrillator. As I will say later, I had a meeting with the former Secretary of State for Education about this issue, and he was committed to it in that role.

I am deeply encouraged by and thankful for the amount of support for the Bill on both sides of the House. I thank hon. Members present for contacting me to offer their support and for suggesting that I hold a debate before Second Reading. The purpose of the debate is to raise awareness and to build the campaign outside the House. We are all able to point to many cases. It is a fundamental aspect of our democracy that Members are able to scrutinise and debate proposed legislation. This debate offers Members the chance to do just that. I have worked with the Minister and look forward to continuing that work to bring this important piece of legislation forward—to bring this ideal into reality. If we can do that, and deliver across the United Kingdom, I will be more than pleased.

Since the Bill’s First Reading, I have been overwhelmed by the amount of support. Support has come from across the House—from all sides, from all parties—which is a reflection that it is welcomed across society. I thank all Members who wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care urging him to engage on this issue. I was able to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the Bill and he demonstrated his sincere support, which we appreciate. The members of the public and people in industry who have contacted me—I have held meetings with as many as possible over the past few months—are the driving community spirit behind this Bill. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to that community spirit. It drives us as constituency MPs.

I thank the Minister for her invaluable contribution. I thank Tom, Sandra and Daniel from Stryker, Matthew Spencer from Healthcomms Consulting, Greg Quinn from BD, Sarah French from SADS UK, Gabriel Phillips of APCO Worldwide, Iain Lawrence from Aero Healthcare UK, Sudden Cardiac Arrest UK, as well as the Arrhythmia Alliance, the Community Heartbeat Trust and British Heart Foundation Northern Ireland. I suspect most of those bodies have already contacted the Minister, as well as her local community and other community groups.

I have been interviewed by university students about the Bill. This demonstrates the concern and interest of a wide cross-section of society about the need for public access to AEDs. I am very grateful for their interest and for broadening my knowledge. No matter what age I am, I will always learn. Today I learn more, and the next day more again. I have an open and active mind, and I want to respond and to learn things that we can use in this House for the benefit of everyone. They taught me about the consequences of a lack of awareness of and training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which added to my knowledge and understanding of sudden cardiac arrest.

There is momentum growing, not only from The Mirror, which has its own campaign. I turned on the Denmark match at the Euros and did not realise what had happened. I was trying to figure out what was happening on screen, as I had missed the first 30 minutes or so of the match. I thought somebody had got hit on the head by a bottle thrown from the crowd or something. The Danish team were all around Christian Eriksen, and I realised that he had had a heart attack. That day, an AED saved his life, because it was there. The Premier League has donated 2,000 AEDs or thereabouts, aiming for them to filter down to some of the junior clubs. There is definitely a growing momentum out there.

I want the debate today to be marked by hope and commitment, but also by respectful demand. We should all support this issue. I am in no doubt as to the wishes of people in the community with regard to the proposed legislation, its importance and the need to have it in place now.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

This is an incredibly important debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that AEDs should be put on public buildings? Those buildings are not open 24/7 and the AEDs should be accessible to the public 24 hours a day, so they should be on the outside of the building. Does he also agree that if every child in school had one hour’s training in CPR every year, we would have far fewer deaths? A combination of those two measures would save many more lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I do agree, and I think there would be a positive consensus in the House on that. I will give an example later of how an AED in a school saved a life in my constituency. I have two examples to illustrate the point.

I have seen over the past year how we have begun to address the importance of CPR training, to which the hon. Lady referred, and AED availability. I agree with her. The AED in Newtownards is in the street, but it could have been in the shop, which closes at six o’clock, so from 6 pm to 9 the next morning it would not have been available. The hon. Lady is right about what should be done.

The right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) backed the campaign, in his former role as Secretary of State for Education, to see all schools equipped with defibrillators. I believe that has been accomplished. I was encouraged by that, as we are trying to do it back home as well. However, it is not just about primary schools; it is about having AEDs available in streets, shopping centres, Government and local government buildings, and leisure centres. The Bill says that they should be available, but it does not put a cost factor on it. To make this happen is a win-win for the Minister and the Government.

I will explain where the campaign came from. The Minister will remember that we met with Mark King, of the Oliver King Foundation, whose 12-year-old son Oliver died of cardiac arrest during a school swimming lesson in 2011. I was incredibly moved, as I know the Minister was, by Mark’s experience. I was motivated too by his commitment to installing AEDs as far and wide across the community as possible. I know that he will be watching the debate today, and it will be a poignant one for him. Throughout this journey, I have stayed in touch with the foundation. I want to remind Members that this Bill was inspired by a young fella called Oliver King—a 12-year-old—and that we bring this debate to the Chamber in the hope of ensuring that Oliver’s legacy continues.

I am encouraged that in Northern Ireland, the Education (Curriculum) (CPR and AED) Bill has reached its second stage. This is not about politics; it is about the issue. That is the way I see things. I am a political person, of course, but what drives me is asking what is the right way to do things—that is important. One of my colleagues who is not of my party, Colin McGrath MLA, has brought the Bill to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have worked together; he was keen to know what I was doing and I was keen to assist him back home in the Assembly. He has expressed his best wishes for the Bill, because it is just as important for children to acquire the CPR and AED skills that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire referred to, as it is for adults. It is good to see a devolved Administration talking, taking this on and encouraging others to follow suit.

I believe in acts and not just words. Very shortly, the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) and I will be doing an AED instruction session in the House, when we are able to. I am not sure when that will be, but we are hoping to do it this side of Christmas—the idea is to have a date that coincides with the Bill’s Second Reading on 10 December. It will be with David Higginbottom of Driver First Assist. My staff and I back home will also be taking part in a CPR and AED training session in the office in Newtownards led by Mrs Pauline Waring, superintendent of the St John Ambulance Dufferin Cadet Unit in Bangor. She, along with many other volunteer leaders, does incredible work with St John cadets by training them in first aid and lifesaving skills. It is always good to remember that the St John Ambulance is voluntarily staffed and funded by its own efforts; I encourage Members to engage with their local St John Ambulance if they can.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield, in his representation to the Committee for this debate, raised the very important point that many people are afraid of AEDs. They should not be, and that is why the training is important. Right away, people ask, “Will I know what to do?”. They will know what to do, because it is quite simple. I am not being smart by saying that; the instructions are really easy—they are easy for children to use as well, if that is necessary. People will learn that AEDs and CPR cannot do any harm; they can only do good. That is the motivation. I refer again to my message of hope for this debate, because anything that equips and inspires our young—anyone, in fact—to do good for the community carries the spirit of hope.

I want to raise some important facts about AEDs and CPR because they are two of the links in the “chain of survival” referred to in the UK Resuscitation Council’s updated guidelines. The third link is targeted temperature management. I want to touch on TTM here because I have been made aware of how this impacts on the recovery process. While the focus of this debate is on promoting the prevalence and availability of AEDs in public spaces and buildings, it remains essential that we consider the whole “chain of survival” once a person has experienced a cardiac arrest and been resuscitated.

In my constituency of Strangford one Saturday afternoon at a football match, one of the supporters collapsed at the side of the pitch. I spoke about this at the debate on the ten-minute rule Bill in February. What saved that man was the fact that the club had a defibrillator at all its matches. That is characteristic of all football matches in my region. People were able to resuscitate that man and he is alive today because the Portavogie football team and one of its staff members were able to get him back. He is alive today and can still attend football matches.

I want to give another example, but I am conscious of the time and other Members want to speak. A father was outside a school after leaving his children there. Unfortunately, he then had a heart attack. The children were inside and did not know what was happening to their daddy. The school had a defibrillator and, again, access to an AED saved that man’s life—he is alive today. Not only is he alive; he is able to continue taking his children to school.

I have given two examples, and I know that other Members will have lots of their own. It is hard not to get enthused about this issue, because of the clear benefits. I have referred to Christian Eriksen who collapsed at the football match. I acknowledge and praise the hard work and unfailing efforts of the Minister, who brought forward legislation in 2016 and 2019. Her support is needed if we are to get this done.

In May 2021, the Italian Government passed legislation requiring all offices open to the public with more than 15 employees, transport hubs, railway stations, airports, sports centres and educational establishments—schools, universities and all those places—to have public access to AEDs. In France, a Bill was passed in 2018 requiring almost all buildings where people gather to have access to an AED, including restaurants and shopping centres. It went a stage further by including holiday centres, places of worship, covered car parks and even mountain refuges. In Singapore, AEDs are carried in taxis.

In this House, we are at an important stage. We have more AEDs per head than across the whole of the country—that is not a criticism, Mr Hollobone. I am not saying we should not have them, but I would like to see that replicated everywhere else.

Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Pauline Latham

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of sexual abuse and exploitation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. When we think of overseas aid workers, we imagine altruistic individuals using their skills to provide essential support to people in need across the world, often with little compensation or formal recognition. Peacekeepers, especially those from the United Nations, also enjoy a favourable public image associated as they are with reducing fatalities and helping communities damaged by conflict to rebuild and recover. When they perform their roles correctly, they represent the best of humanity but when they abuse their positions of responsibility, they harm their relations with the host country population, jeopardise peacekeeping and development efforts and leave victims behind, damaged and with no idea of where to obtain redress. I intend for this debate to focus on how to protect the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers and prevent further victims from being made in the future.

The involvement of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in sexual exploitation and abuse and the difficulties experienced by their victims in obtaining redress has been known about for years. To provide some examples from the Select Committee on International Development report on “Sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector” published in 2018, I point to the revelations in 2002 about children being abused in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. In 2007-08, the vast majority of surveyed victims of sexual exploitation in Kenya, Namibia and Thailand said they did not know where or how to report their abuse. Last month, staff from a variety of organisations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Oxfam and World Vision were discovered to have exploited and abused girls and women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is going on again, again and again.

Host countries damaged by poverty and war naturally have displaced people and it is not the case the peacekeepers and overseas aid workers are merely passive participants in the effects of deprivation and misery in host countries. Sometimes their arrival can actively create the problems. A note by the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1996 entitled “The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children” concluded:

“In six out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children during armed conflict, the arrival of peace-keeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution.”

Most obviously international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers have access to money, food, supplies and other resources that enable them to exercise influence over the population of the host country. This influence is frequently used improperly—for example, to obtain transactional sex. Women sometimes even have to sell their young daughters for food and supplies. That may be shocking but the fact that it happens just shows how desperate the victims are.

As I said at the beginning, overseas aid workers and international peacekeepers have incredibly important roles supporting the most vulnerable across the world. When they engage in sexual exploitation and abuse, they undermine the trust of the people they are meant to protect and of the people who support them at home. Public trust in charities has fallen since these matters were reported, so have donations. Ultimately, sexual exploitation and abuse undermine the efforts of those workers who conduct themselves properly.

Reading the reports of historical sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers, and the responses of organisations involved, provides a sense of déjà vu. First, there are the apologies, often expressed in general terms about falling short of standards, which are undefined. Secondly, there are frequent platitudes about “lessons being learned” and the interests of victims being at the forefront while ultimately inconclusive investigations are commissioned. During that stage, the perpetrators can be allowed to resign quietly and are free to take employment with another organisation operating in a different country, where they continue their abusive behaviour. Thirdly, there is a gradual loss of interest in the issue until, in five or six years’ time, the exact same thing happens again and the same people make the same excuses. That complacency has led to the trend of the last three decades and it must stop.

While ever I am on a Committee looking at how the aid budget is spent on behalf of our taxpayers, I will keep asking the questions that many do not want asked, which I have been doing since I first heard about this shocking problem at the world humanitarian summit in 2016 in Istanbul. I heard about the problem at one of the fringe meetings, where panellists from several different countries discussed the problem and admitted that nothing could be done about it. From that moment on, I asked about it in almost every IDC evidence session until it was recognised that something had to be done, but only when the Oxfam and Save the Children scandal happened was I finally taken seriously.

There are already fears in the current IDC that the latest round of complacency has arrived. In the evidence session on 7 May 2019, we were given an assurance by Frances Longley, then chief executive of Amref Health Africa UK, who said:

“As a sector, we are passionately committed to making that reporting better and more effective, and we absolutely stand side by side with you on that.”

But I wonder what is actually happening. Tracey Smith, then chief executive of British Expertise International, stated:

“The companies have shared best practice. They have looked at the way the sector operates. They have collaborated together, but it is felt that those specific, strategic issues, the support for survivors, cultural change, minimum standards, organisational capacity and capability, are covered by the code of conduct.”

Passion, collaboration and discussion do not produce results and will certainly not do so if they fall back on a vague code of conduct that has hitherto abjectly failed to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable women and girls across the world.

Three problems must be addressed to discourage potential abusers from exploiting women and girls and to support those who have been abused. They relate to reporting, investigation and whistleblowing. Victims of sexual exploitation and abuse encounter significant problems when they attempt to report their experiences. Many different legal regimes may operate in the context of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in mission host countries. There is international law, which often comes with immunity in respect of certain actions; the law of the perpetrator’s country, which may or may not provide redress; and the host country’s law, which cannot be reliable if the host country is in political turmoil.

Generally, victims lack the expertise to pursue their cases without legal assistance, and of course they lack the ability to pay for that legal assistance unless they rely on those organisations that may have been responsible for their abuse in the first instance. Different organisations have different structures and complaints procedures, and there may be so many operating in one area that it is impossible to know which the abuser belongs to. Reporting rape and sexual assault is difficult in the best of places, but as Professor Andrew MacLeod stated in the IDC’s evidence session on 6 October this year, in the context of host countries,

“It is like asking the victim of rape to report to the rapist”.

Often, the women or girls cannot read, so notices that we have been assured are pinned up for the victims to read go unread and therefore the complicated systems for reporting such abuse are a complete waste of time.

This situation is not improved by the behaviours of the institutions involved. In the evidence session on 6 October, Sienna Merope-Synge characterised the “practical reality” of the UN’s assistance as

“usually a black hole of information; that is the standard. At best it may be some charitable crumbs to the victim that is not based on an acknowledgement of legal rights and responsibility.”

In the minority of cases that are reported to the organisation involved, there is no guarantee that effective remedial action will be taken against the perpetrators, even when they are known and identified.

The Oxfam scandal of 2018 is probably the best known example of that. After an investigation by The Times in February of that year, it emerged that senior staff in Oxfam’s mission to Haiti, including the Belgian country director Roland van Hauwermeiren, had hired prostitutes at a villa rented by the charity. An internal investigation commenced, in which several of the abusers admitted using “prostitutes”. The internal report concluded that there was a culture of impunity among Oxfam staff and that some of the “prostitutes” could have been under age, yet that report remained confidential. The perpetrators were allowed to resign and the details disclosed to the Charity Commission were inadequate.

Shockingly, The Times reported that Dame Barbara Stocking, the chief executive of Oxfam at that time, offered van Hauwermeiren a “dignified exit”, because sacking him would have had potentially serious implications for the charity’s reputation. In other words, Oxfam was more concerned with looking good than doing good, and acquiesced in one of its top staff members enjoying all the acclaim of his position while performing none of his responsibilities towards the vulnerable people he was meant to protect. He had already been investigated for inappropriate sexual activity in 2011, when he had worked for Merlin, but he had been allowed to resign and go to another job elsewhere.

In numerous evidence sessions to the IDC, it has become apparent that the problem is not exclusive to Oxfam. Nevertheless, what I want to know is why they believe that women or girls are “prostitutes” rather than victims. How many people in this Chamber went to school with somebody who said, “When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute?” Exactly: these women or girls are victims, as are all sex workers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. When someone applies for another job—ever mindful of their experience and what they have done before—is there not an obligation on that charitable body, or whoever, to ensure that when it seeks a character reference it contains the full details of what the person did before they left their former job?

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I think that the problem with character references is that those giving them can be sued, and they often have to be public. Often, the person applying for a job has to know what has been said in their character reference, which I feel is completely wrong. Very often, what someone has done is known about, but they resign before the end of the investigation into their activity, which means there is no blot on their copybook; nobody knows about their behaviour and they move on. That is a serious problem and I hope that we will hear from the Minister as to how he will address it.

Reporting sexual exploitation and abuse is often discouraged by those organisations that do not have transparent structures. Many whistleblowers, having approached the media or other organisations, are summarily dismissed and unable to work again in a similar role. These are not isolated examples; there are many examples.

One recent example that attracted notoriety is that of Anders Kompass, a former employee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2014, he approached French authorities regarding sexual exploitation and abuse that he had learned about by French peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. He was suspended for not having gone through the formality of asking his superior for guidance before whistleblowing and for including personal details of the victims in his report. He was later exonerated by an independent panel. The UN’s allegations were spurious. However, six years later the investigations into the allegations against the French peacekeepers have still not been completed. It is often difficult to avoid the impression that organisations complicit in sexual exploitation and abuse are more concerned with protecting themselves than with punishing the perpetrators, with scant regard for the victims. Given the difficulties at every stage, from perpetration and reporting to whistleblowing and investigating to obtain redress, fundamental changes must be implemented to ensure the safety of women and girls in the world’s most deprived areas. We must not forget that it is a problem for a few boys as well, although a much smaller number than for girls.

Currently, frontline aid workers do not require Disclosure and Barring Service checks to operate in host countries. DBS checks ensure that people working with children and vulnerable adults do not have a history of abuse, which is an effective move towards protection. Since overseas aid workers support mainly very vulnerable children and adults, a requirement that they obtain DBS checks or something similar might improve the situation. There is an aid worker registration scheme that would prevent perpetrators of sexual exploitation and abuse from moving around the sector after their abuse has been detected. The scheme could be made effective if donors and Governments were encouraged to make their donations conditional on an organisation being a member of the scheme.

Twenty-one of the 30 major donors that form the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD have agreed to pilot the scheme. Regular reporting of safeguarding and misconduct data would also ensure that victims are actively sought out rather than expected to report their abuse to organisations that, understandably, they do not trust. The establishment of an ombudsman by the international aid community could reduce the complexity of legal systems and complaints procedures that contribute to the chronic under-reporting of sexual exploitation and abuse. Such abuse by peacekeepers and overseas aid workers is an appalling fact of life for vulnerable people in the world’s most deprived and war-torn areas. It is thought that because sexual exploitation and abuse of under-age children has been tackled primarily in the churches, particularly in this country through the Scouting and Guiding groups and all those other places where it was happening, many of the perpetrators are gravitating towards the aid sector because they can go abroad where they are anonymous and can get away not with murder, but with sexual exploitation and abuse. My hope is that effective reforms will be implemented to improve the situation and that the victims are not simply forgotten, as they have been time and again.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was the Secretary of State for the Department for International Development, she had an international summit just across the road, where many of us present believed that much would be done and achieved as a result of a spotlight on the problem. Things have changed, but nowhere near enough. The whole culture must change, not only to ensure that proper reporting is done, but to stop men’s abuse of women and girls. Men need to know that there is absolutely no tolerance of such behaviour, and that if it happens they will be sacked immediately and will be unlikely to get another job where they have access to the most vulnerable.

I wish to ask the Minister what solutions the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has come up with to ensure that this country does not in future become complicit in any form of sexual exploitation and abuse of anyone, never mind the most vulnerable people in the world. What will the Department do to stop it from happening again and again? How does the new, mighty Department plan to follow on from the female Secretaries of State for DFID?