Wiltshire: Decision to be made on deadly pathogen research facility
There are calls for a serious review into plans to spend £3bn moving a research centre almost 90 miles (144 km) across England.John Glen, Conservative MP for Salisbury, said plans to move the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) campus to Harlow, in Essex, rather than using its existing Porton Down site in Wiltshire was a "redundant" plan.More than £39m has already been spent on proposals for Public Health England's new site, where scientists would study deadly pathogens, which are disease-causing microorganisms.Health minister Ashley Dalton said the government would announce its decision "in a matter of weeks", with a commitment "to sorting this issue out once and for all".
Mr Glen, whose Salisbury constituency is home to Porton Down, told the Commons that "Porton has remained instrumental in delivering translational health research for our nation".The UKHSA's £27m Robinson Building opened in Wiltshire in 2022, one of two facilities that made up a new £65m vaccine evaluation centre during the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr Glen said this decision "reinforced" his point and asked why such a "significant" capital investment was made if the centre was to be moved to Harlow. He called for a "serious review of what is going on here" and continued: "Effectively what we're doing is clinging, I think, to a redundant plan."
In 2015, HM Treasury approved Public Health England's outline business case for a new £530m national integrated hub for public health science.Funding for the programme was used to purchase the Harlow site in 2017 and it was planned that both the laboratories and workforce from Porton Down and Colindale in London would be relocated there.
But the Commons Public Accounts Committee, which looks at whether Government schemes provide value for money, warned of "spiralling" costs, which had risen by more than 500% since 2015 - putting the price tag at more than £3bn.Dame Meg Hillier, the committee chairwoman, said as time passes with no decision made, a "risk" of a gap in service for the UK's high containment public health laboratories service grows.A report by the National Audit Office, in February, found failings to establish the new site had "undermined" the UK's future resilience to dangerous diseases.
'Over a decade'
Intervening in Mr Glen's speech, Chris Vince, Labour MP for Harlow, said: "We really want a decision on this particular, whether it's a move or not, because actually both our constituents are currently in limbo."Responding, Ms Dalton told MPs that if the Harlow project continues "things will not happen overnight" due to rigorous scientific requirements.She said: "[This] means that completion will take over a decade, and that's why we continue to invest in maintaining our current site and facilities at Porton Down."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW PIERCE: Has Miliband's EdStone finally found a home?
The final resting place of the 'EdStone', the 8.5ft stone tablet on which Labour 's then leader Ed Miliband had six manifesto pledges carved before the 2015 election, has long been a matter of debate. Miliband had vowed to install it in the Downing Street rose garden 'as a reminder of our duty to keep Labour's promises' but, after he was defeated by David Cameron 's Tories, it disappeared without trace. So imagine my surprise when I came across the monument to Miliband's vanity at the Nevill Holt Festival, on the estate of Carphone Warehouse founder David Ross, where I was interviewing Mail columnist Sarah Vine about her compelling book How Not To Be A Political Wife. Alas, I hadn't got a scoop. The stone was an imitation commissioned by Ross. Money talks for Rishi Since his general election defeat last July, Rishi Sunak has been only a fleeting visitor to the Commons and has steered clear of set-piece speeches. Perhaps he's been saving his voice for his lucrative engagements abroad. For just three speaking events since April, he's trousered a cool half a million pounds. Two speeches in America and one in South Korea yielded £161,000, £156,000 and £188,000. Not bad work if you can get it. Commons Tea Room tantrums are breaking out over young politicians bringing their offspring into the hallowed 'MPs only' watering hole. As one veteran Member fumed: 'It's ridiculous... What's wrong with the nursery, for God's sake?' Political hacks at Westminster love a leak – but they are getting fed up with the one in the main gents loo in the Press Gallery. The facilities have been closed for weeks. One frustrated journalist sighed: 'We all know Whitehall leak inquiries are designed to take ages and get nowhere but this is beyond a joke.' While the world teetered on the brink of war in the Middle East, MPs went to a yoga class organised by Tory MP Bob Blackman to mark International Yoga Day last Thursday. Contorting yourself into implausible positions while saying 'Umm'? It's natural for politicians. Take with a pinch of salt Lib Dem pearl-clutching about the national inquiry into grooming gangs being overdue. When a vote was held on the issue in January, the 72 Lib Dem MPs abstained. Brian's no fan of Starmer Labour luvvie Brian Cox, treading the boards in his home city of Dundee, is unhappy with Sir Keir Starmer. The Succession star, who is playing economist Adam Smith in Make It Happen, a play about the Royal Bank of Scotland, says: 'Everything for Starmer is England. He talks about England. I'm sick of it. I'm fed up. He talks about English football.' Following a string of bad results under new England manager Thomas Tuchel, Cox can take some consolation from the fact that, these days, Starmer has less to crow about. TV producer Linda McDougall was at the launch of Iain Dale's book about Margaret Thatcher when an acquaintance inquired: 'How is Austin?' McDougall laughed like a drain and said her Labour MP husband Austin Mitchell was 'still dead'.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
DOMINIC LAWSON: The no-nonsense police chief restoring faith in law and order - and why he's got no time for Labour's misguided prison reforms
Amid the general dissatisfaction with the state of our public services, which is the most dangerous element in this national malaise? It is the precipitous loss of confidence in our police forces. Less than half of those questioned last year in the Office for National Statistics Crime Survey said their local police were doing a good job; ten years ago almost two-thirds gave a positive response. This matters so much because, while the Government burbles about 'defence of the realm' being the first responsibility of the state, our sense of security derives principally from how it is manifested in our daily lives. That comes from policing. I have never heard the risks to this fundamental element in the pact between government and the governed put with such urgency as by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Stephen Watson, addressing the country's pre-eminent political think tank, Policy Exchange, last week. The 56-year-old Watson lamented that 'our natural constituency' – by which he meant the law-abiding – 'are now asking, what the Hell is going on with policing?' He then set out how destructive this is: 'The policing mission is essential to our country, it is essential to our life-blood, it is essential to our economy, it is essential to the fabric of family and community life, it is essential to a country that prides itself on abiding by the rules.' To listen to some within law enforcement, the impression is given that, without a vast increase in funding, they are defenceless to stem the decline. Not so this particular police chief, who describes such an attitude as 'abhorrent defeatism, telling the public we can't do x or y, that it's all too difficult'. Watson is entitled to such an implicit criticism of others in the crime prevention business, because of the transformation he has wrought within the Greater Manchester Police (recognised with a knighthood in this month's King's Birthday Honours). When he took over GMP in 2021, having made the previously lamentable South Yorkshire Police the 'most improved force' for three successive years, it was in special measures. The GMP had failed even to record 80,000 crimes and its 999 response times were the worst in England. That was turned around within a year, with a quadrupling of 'stop and searches' and, in 2024, progress was stepped up, increasing arrests, answering emergency calls in an average time of two seconds, and attending serious incidents, also on average, in under eight minutes. All this has had a marked effect on offending rates – downwards. Last year, GMP recorded a reduction of eight per cent in total crime: residential burglaries down 11 per cent, theft down 28 per cent and vehicle offences down over 18 per cent. It must be deeply frustrating for Watson and his officers that the Government, concerned about jail overcrowding, and arguing that short sentences don't help prisoners to reform, is pursuing a policy of replacing so-called 'short prison sentences' with electronic tagging. As Sir Stephen remarked to those of us at the Policy Exchange meeting: 'Short sentences may not work for offenders, but they do work for victims, and I'm on the victims' side.' Many blame the requirement to investigate so-called 'non-crime hate incidents' as a reason for police forces' distraction from dealing with what used to be the bread and butter of crime-fighting. These were introduced in the wake of the Macpherson Report, following the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence, and designed to log acts of prejudice or hostility towards people with a 'protected characteristic'. Watson didn't raise this, but, asked by a member of the audience if the policy of collecting 'non-crime hate incident data' should be scrapped, he responded that it should: 'What it morphed into was pretty much anyone with a protected characteristic who perceived themselves to be a victim of an incident because of that, was automatically recorded. I think that's a mistake. It went too far.' Not that he has any tolerance for delinquent police officers, declaring that recent years have revealed 'the most appalling misconduct and criminal acts by serving officers who should never have been recruited and who should have been kicked out of the force long before dreadful things happened'. Under Watson, GMP has kicked out hundreds of officers deemed to have been corrupt or simply useless (he introduced a new test for aspirant officers, having been stunned to discover how many were functionally illiterate, unable even to fill out an incident report). In a sense, Watson is trying to reintroduce what is sometimes called 'good, old fashioned policing'. This was clear from an interview he gave to the Daily Telegraph a year ago, when he said one of his first decisions was to replace what he called officers' 'scruffy kit', which didn't even have the force's insignia, with smart new uniforms. 'If you turn up to work, if you're a female officer, you tie your hair up, if you're a man, you've had a shave, you press your clothing, you polish your boots, you look smart.' It is perhaps not surprising that Watson comes from a military family background. His father had been a Royal Navy officer in Rhodesia but the family left the country along with many other Britons when Robert Mugabe took power. Sir Stephen himself was 18 when he returned to Britain and still has a faint Rhodesian accent. I noticed that especially when sitting close to him at lunch after the speech was delivered. I also saw that he was wearing Union Jack cufflinks. Some of the other attendees at the lunch were former Metropolitan Police officers, who felt the Met desperately needed his brand of leadership. On all the vital measures, such as arrests per officer, and reducing crime rates, that most emblematic force, the original one created in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, has been eclipsed by Manchester. Sir Stephen didn't rise to the bait but emphasised how supportive the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, had been. When film emerged a year ago showing one of Watson's officers kicking and stamping on the head of a 19-year-old, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, during a fracas at Manchester Airport, Burnham made sure to see the police footage of the whole incident. This showed that Amaaz had, just before, broken the nose of a female police officer in a sustained assault. Burnham went on the radio to warn those marching in support of Amaaz: 'There are two sides of this complicated situation... people's careers are put on the line. We feel for the police officers who were injured.' Would London's mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, have done the same? And do the Home Office apparatchiks want someone like Watson to be the country's top cop? When I asked a former Met Detective Chief Inspector, David Spencer, now Policy Exchange's head of Crime and Justice, he was not encouraging: 'The Government should replicate the Watson playbook of police leadership across every force. 'My biggest fear is that the current system is more likely to suppress future Watsons coming through.' If that is the case, public confidence in the police will slide still lower – possibly with consequences that no government could survive.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ROSA MONCKTON: Why I'll fight in the Lords against this breathtakingly cruel and ignorant assisted suicide Bill
Last week in the House of Commons we saw two measures passed: the first licensing women to abort at up to full term, the second enabling the state to participate in, and even encourage, suicide for the terminally ill. There is a terrible symmetry here, and a bleak message – that life at its beginning, and at its end, is worthless. As the mother of an adult with a learning disability I am petrified by the lack of protection for vulnerable people in the assisted suicide Bill. You spend much of your life as a parent of a disabled child fighting for the necessary support, for the right school, the therapists, a specialist college. Every time you think you can take a breath and relax, the next milestone and hurdle awaits. You worry endlessly. The biggest concern for every parent is what will happen when we are dead. Who will look after our 'child', who will understand their needs, care for them in the right way and facilitate their way through life? But now, to add to that worry, is another enormous and unspeakable question – how can we stop them being killed? I cannot believe that I am having to write these words. Yet the assisted suicide Bill makes no special provision whatsoever for this disenfranchised group. How have we got to this place, where some lives are valued more than others? Many people with a learning disability are vulnerable. My own 30-year-old daughter, Domenica, who has Down's syndrome – and loves life – is highly suggestible and would intuit what her interlocutor wanted to hear, without understanding what she would be agreeing to. Yet in law she has what is called 'capacity'. The Bill is flawed on so many levels: the fact that no one on the death panel has to have any knowledge of the individual, the fact that hospices and care homes that do not want to be involved in assisted suicide will have no protection in law and the fact that their government funding could be based on participation. Where does that sit with the ethos of Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the hospice movement? A movement based on the principle of care: 'You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' She also said: 'Suffering is only intolerable when nobody cares.' People who work in hospices do care, and the hospices that I have visited and am involved with are wonderful, positive and life-affirming places. Those who work in these hospices who do not approve of assisted suicide – which is almost all of them – will probably leave the palliative care profession. And where does that leave us? With people who want to end the lives of others, not care to the end. All legislators – of which I am one, in the House of Lords – should be considering the weakest and most vulnerable when making momentous, and in this case, literal, life and death decisions. The Bill as it stands has no special protection for people like my daughter. This is something that rightly troubles the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, too. Explaining his decision to vote against the Bill in a Facebook post aimed at his constituents, he said: 'I can't get past the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and a wide range of charities representing under-privileged groups in our society about the risks that come with this Bill.' Among the many amendments rejected by the committee set up by the sponsor of the bill, Kim Leadbeater MP, were safeguards to protect people with Down's syndrome – an amendment which should have included all people with a learning disability or autism. The committee, of which the great majority were backers of the Bill, rejected by 13 to eight to exclude special support for those with Down's syndrome when discussing assisted suicide. How could this possibly be considered acceptable? Was there not one of those 13 with experience of what it is to have a learning disability; no understanding of how much specialised knowledge and interpretation is needed? If anyone mentions death or dying to my daughter, she immediately becomes acutely anxious and troubled. The deaths we have had in our family have traumatised her. The thought of a stranger telling her that to kill herself would be an option if she has a terminal illness is so frightening and chilling that it makes me cry, and the fact this could all happen without any of her family being informed – as the Bill enables – is breathtakingly cruel and ignorant. But above all else it makes me angry. Angry at the lack of rigour in this bill. Angry at the lack of understanding of people with learning disabilities. Angry at the implicit assumption that their lives are not worth the same as the rest of the population. We saw it during the Covid pandemic, when the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which provides guidance to the NHS and the social care sector, divided the population into different categories and advised how each should be treated. Category 7 was defined as 'completely dependent for personal care, from whatever cause, physical or cognitive. Even so, they seem stable and at no risk of dying'. That would have covered my daughter. Categories 7 to 9 were to be denied lifesaving treatment. Legislators have a duty to be rigorous and fair. You cannot make laws because Dame Esther Rantzen lobbied the Prime Minister, or because someone's granny had an avoidably terrible death. This should never have been a Private Member's Bill. It has not had the scrutiny or the parliamentary time necessary for such a momentous change in the way we live and die. It is a law for the strong and determined against the weak and the vulnerable. All of us in Parliament should know which of those needs the most protection.
