David Davis
MP for Goole and Pocklington · Conservative · United Kingdom
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on putting a Bill in front of the House that has support from literally everybody in the Chamber?”
“The Post Office Horizon scandal highlighted the institutional instinct to find a convenient scapegoat. Innocent people paid the price, while the institution sought to protect itself. If the Thirlwall inquiry asks too narrow a set of questions, systemic NHS failures will go unexamined.”
“Last month’s sentencing of Nicola Sturgeon’s husband exposed the real reasons behind the Scottish Government’s persecution of Alex Salmond. From 2010 to 2022, Peter Murrell abused his position to embezzle almost £500,000 from the SNP to buy luxury items. He used SNP money to buy a £33,000 Volkswagen Golf.”
“The consultants also reported that in the two months since the change infants have been sick but recovered as expected.” The report highlighted deficiencies in staffing levels, leadership and communication, but, in the trial, it was not shown to the jury—they knew nothing of it.”
“One of the nurses let go later described it as “the decimation of the Nursing and Midwifery service”, adding that “eight registered nurses...were replaced with nursery nurses...unqualified staff are replacing qualified staff”.”
“There was little space, cots and incubators were stored in corridors, and mothers struggled to find somewhere to breastfeed their babies. Susan Gilby, the hospital’s chief executive between 2018 and 2022, later described the unit as “dark, dingy and cramped”, providing a “less than ideal” environment to work in.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,828 lines we hold for David Davis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 117.
“For cases where the alleged crime is in Britain, no British defence witness is going to travel to a court in the US and risk being charged on arrival and never coming back. What is more, prosecutors label these witnesses as co-conspirators, which handicaps the defence’s ability but maximises the prosecution’s ability to use their evidence. These tactics are such a serious issue that in one American case—that of Mohammad Dolah—the judge described it as “a fundamental unfairness that might well amount to a denial of due process.” It is not just the prosecution inside the courtroom stacking the deck against the defendant. The first amendment to the American constitution allows the American media to print and broadcast sometimes frenzied coverage of trials, which inevitably prejudices their outcome.”
“Take the case of Jamie Olis, an employee of a US energy firm who stood accused of fraud. He refused a plea bargain and protested his innocence in court. He was handed a 24-year sentence. His boss at the firm—presumably more responsible—took the plea bargain route and co-operated with the Government. He was sentenced to just 15 months; 15 months for the boss and 24 years for the subordinate. Plea bargains are just one of the tools used by US prosecutors to stack the deck against defendants. They also deliberately use the threat of prosecution to disable the defence’s witnesses. Witnesses willing to co-operate with the prosecution are given immunity, while witnesses who refuse to do so find themselves threatened with prosecution.”
“Defendants then face enormous pressure from the US authorities to agree a plea bargain. They are told that if they refuse a deal, they will be denied bail and face decades in a maximum-security prison, but if they plead guilty, they will receive a much lighter sentence in an open prison. They are also reminded of the huge financial cost in America of protracted and complex trials, often running into the millions or tens of millions. It takes a brave person to turn down the easy route. David Bermingham has described how he had to negotiate his punishment before he had even settled on the crime he would be pleading guilty to. That is repeated across the US legal system, where a massive majority of cases are settled by a plea bargain—I think the number is 97%.”
“Those extradited to the US face this treatment whenever they are dragged into and out of court in front of the television cameras and the paparazzi. All this comes at the expense of the presumption of innocence. It is often the case that once extradited to America, the accused is refused bail. This is on the basis that they are a flight risk. The result is that they are thrown in a cell, often shared with a fellow inmate—possibly a hardened criminal—and their access to legal papers is massively restricted. Their ability to contribute meaningfully to their defence is totally handicapped. This is particularly damaging in all those white-collar cases, where the relevant evidence can stretch to millions of pages and the prosecution face no requirement to tell defendants which pieces of evidence they intend to rely on.”
“Since 2018, in the cases of Lauri Love, Stuart Scott, Robert McDaid and Christopher Taylor, the courts have used this bar in a partial attempt to even up our extradition arrangements. This asymmetry is not an inevitable outcome of being an ally of the US. It is a policy choice. Countries such as France and Germany refuse to allow their citizens to be extradited and for good reason. David Bermingham, one of the NatWest Three, described to the House of Lords how he and his co-defendants were extradited to Texas and “put in…hand chains, foot chains”— restraining “belts and everything else”, and then “strip-searched”. This is designed not only to intimidate the accused, but to score a PR victory for American prosecutors.”
“On 12 February last year, he said: “I do think that elements of that relationship are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at” —[ Official Report , 12 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 846.] — yet nearly a year on, we remain in the same position. The courts may be starting to recognise the imbalance. In the wake of the decision to block Gary McKinnon’s extradition, UK courts were given the power to bar extradition on forum grounds so that crimes committed primarily in the UK against UK citizens could be tried in this country. The absence of the forum bar in the 2003 Act highlighted just how cavalier the Blair Administration were with the rights of British citizens. The safeguard had existed previously in the 1957 European convention on extradition, and citizens almost universally elsewhere in Europe could count on its protection.”
“Such a seemingly minor change in language has a dramatic effect. With the US being a larger country, and with the UK being closer to the frontline on terrorism, we would expect the numbers being extradited from the United States to the UK to be greater than those going in the opposite direction. The reverse applies. The US has surrendered only 58 individuals to the United Kingdom since 2007, with only 11 of them American citizens, while 135 have gone the other way. There is no starker example of the inequity and imbalance than the case that you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, of Anne Sacoolas and the death of Harry Dunn. In that case, the US Secretary of State used the discretion afforded only to the US under the treaty to prevent extradition. The Prime Minister has recognised this imbalance.”
“An American citizen facing extradition to the UK can challenge it in a US court on the basis that there is no “probable cause”, but a UK citizen facing extradition has no right to a reasonable grounds hearing. That is what the Joint Committee on Human Rights called in 2011 a “lack of reciprocity in the Treaty” when it called for reform of that treaty. In the case of political offences, the treaty allows a US Executive to determine what is and is not a political offence. In the UK, we rightly leave this to the courts. What is more, the US Secretary of State has far greater discretion to refuse an extradition than our Home Secretary. The British Extradition Act states: “The Secretary of State must issue a certificate” for extradition. The equivalent US code states: “The Secretary of State may order the person....to be tried”.”
“Of course, people must be brought to justice when they break the law, but the problem at the heart of this extradition process is that it is fundamentally asymmetric and unbalanced in favour of the United States. This lopsided treaty allows US citizens to evade justice, while exposing UK citizens to miscarriages of justice. In a 2011 report on our extradition arrangements, Lord Justice Scott Baker concluded that we did not need to change the rules to ensure that London-based offences are dealt with here in the UK. He was wrong. He failed to give enough weight to the US ambition to extend its extraterritorial jurisdiction of commercial crimes. He also made no allowance for the incredibly one-sided nature of prosecution and trial of foreign suspects in the US justice system.”
“In 2012, the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that the US “has the power to reach out around the world and—provided there is a very, very tenuous connection with the US—it generally has the power to prosecute.” That has been shown in case after case, including those of Ian Norris the former head of Morgan Crucible, the NatWest Three, Christopher Tappin and numerous others. Those cases all have common themes: they are all British citizens; the alleged crimes all took place on British soil; and the UK authorities did not see them as having a case to answer, but the UK system failed to protect them and the US authorities ultimately got their way.”
“When the 2003 extradition treaty was introduced, it was sold on the basis—I remember this because I was the shadow Home Secretary—that it would be used principally for paedophiles, murderers and terrorists. But the people we are extraditing to the US today are, mostly, white-collar businessmen who pose no physical danger to United Kingdom or US citizens. Between 2007 and 2019, the UK surrendered 135 individuals to the US, 99 of them for non-violent offences. Instead of seeking justice against dangerous criminals, the United States is seeking to be judge, jury and executioner for global commercial deals.”
“In responding to those concerns, Minister Bob Ainsworth gave a clear and unequivocal answer: “The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated”. —[ Official Report , 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 115.] The Government today have also recognised that. In October 2019, the Home Office confirmed that such a bar was implicit in UK law and that it would be down to judges, on a case-by-case basis, to decide whether to apply the bar. However, recent cases before the courts have shown that an implicit bar is not enough. We must have clarity on this issue. It is vital that our extradition arrangements have appropriate protection for political offences, not least because political asylum seekers may seek the protection of British justice in the future. But that is not all.”
“It stems from an erroneous interpretation of Parliament’s intention in 2003. This must now be clarified. Article 4 of the UK-US extradition treaty provides that extradition will not be granted for political offences. In the UK, the treaty was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. It has been claimed that, because the Act does not specifically refer to political offences, Parliament explicitly took the decision to remove the bar when passing the Act in 2003. That is not the case—Parliament had no such intention. Had it intended such a massive deviation from our centuries-long tradition of providing asylum, it would have been explicit. When the Extradition Bill was debated in the Commons, Members raised concerns about extraditions in relation to political offences.”
“Perhaps that was understandable in the context of the terrorism sweeping the world at that time, but friends must be honest with each other, and now we must say, “Enough is enough.” The 2003 treaty paved the way for British citizens to be handed over to the US authorities, with minimal safeguards against injustice. Numerous examples down the years have shown this, from the NatWest Three to Christopher Tappin. The recent decision to block the extradition of Mr Assange did not add to the list. However, the judgment earlier this month was a human rather than a legal victory. Although we cannot, of course, discuss the substance of the Assange judgment here today, the House must note the worrying development more generally in our extradition arrangements—extradition for political offences.”
“It seems to me that when we think about the treaties, not just for America but for other areas, we should consider trying to guarantee equivalence of justice in delivery, as well as in principle.”
“I had not intended to interfere with the Minister’s course, but since this point has been raised, I will say that the most fundamental thing under-pinning all extradition arrangements—whether they are with America, Europe or whatever—is a presumption that the justice systems are reasonably equivalent. This is where the weakness comes in. Take the case of Christopher Tappin, who was extradited. He was somewhere in his 60s—65, maybe—and he was threatened with a 30-year sentence if he did not confess to a crime that he did not believe he had committed. That is an intolerable difference, and it is not just criticised here. As the Minister quite rightly says, it is the subject of massive criticism in the United States, but they are stuck with it until they change it.”
“Although we may not agree or approve of what is being said, the right to free speech is the foundation stone of our democracy. To stand idly by while that foundation is being eroded is a dereliction of our duty. The Bill makes it the absolute duty of every university authority to protect that most fundamental of our freedoms: the right to free speech. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr David Davis, Robert Halfon, Esther McVey, Chris Green, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Ben Bradley, James Grundy, Andrew Lewer, Craig Mackinlay, James Sunderland, Lee Anderson and Philip Davies present the Bill. Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow , and to be printed (Bill 240).”
“Although in the UK we theoretically have laws protecting freedom of speech, in practice they are buried in education Acts, resulting in the protections not being widely known and universities not always upholding their duties. That is why I am proposing this Bill. What does this Bill set out to do? It would, in effect, make universities responsible for upholding free speech throughout their campuses. Freedom of speech is not, of course, absolute. With rights come responsibilities, so speech that is illegal—incitement to violence, for example—would of course be forbidden, but speech that is merely unpopular with any sector of the university would not be proscribed. Controversial views and the challenging of established positions would not be proscribed.”
“Just last month, a report by Civitas found that more than a third of our universities impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech—including, I am ashamed to say, Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews. The fact is that a number of our international allies today protect freedom of speech much better than we do. Some have it specifically written into their country’s constitution, and others put it explicitly into law. Ireland, for example, has the Universities Act 1997, which protects “the freedom, within the law, in…teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the university, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”.”
“We would have a very different society today, and not a better one. The chilling effect on free speech would be disastrous, and the impact on academic freedom would be catastrophic. Its cost is already too high. Before I leave this subject, what about Amber Rudd? She was no-platformed for her connection to the Government’s handling of the Windrush scandal, yet it was a whole year after she had been explicitly cleared by an investigation that found that she had not been supported as she should have been by the Home Office. In her case, it was not just speech denied but justice denied. Today, views expressed in a recent survey commissioned by Britain’s biggest university academic union showed that Britain has the second-lowest level of academic freedom in all Europe.”
“After all, nobody is compelled to listen. But when people explicitly or indirectly no-platform Amber Rudd, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens and others, they are not protecting themselves; they are denying others the right to hear those people and even, perhaps, challenge what they say. Let us repeat our thought experiment—our conjecture —in a modern context. Germaine Greer wrote the pivotal book on feminism and was its most powerful and effective advocate. Peter Tatchell was and is an unbelievably brave and very effective campaigner on gay rights and a host of civil freedoms. Peter Hitchens is a professional iconoclast who has challenged overmighty Government of all colours through the decades. Imagine what would have happened if they and their allies had been prevented from pursuing their causes in the public domain.”
“Imagine if their censorious predecessors in the established Churches had been successful in their attempts to suppress Galileo and Darwin. People would still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe or that the human species was created on the sixth day from clay. Of course, those ideas are ridiculous, but such falsehoods were conquered only through the freedom to speak truth to power and to shine light in the dark with the ability to advocate for science and reason. Today, there is a corrosive trend in our universities that aims to prevent anybody from airing ideas that groups disagree with or would be offended by. Let us be clear: it is not about protecting delicate sensibilities from offence; it is about censorship. We can protect our own sensibilities by not going to hear the speech.”
“That is why the greatest characterisation of free speech, attributed to Voltaire by his biographer, who is: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. In one version, it was notably: “I may detest what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Voltaire understood that creativity and progress in a society depend on acts of intellectual rebellion, dissent, disagreement and controversy, no matter how uncomfortable, but today the cancel culture movement think it is reasonable to obliterate the views of people they disagree with, rather than challenge them in open debate. They are wrong. Why? Because the unwillingness to hear uncomfortable opinion and the refusal of platforms to people they disagree with is damaging to us all.”
“When representatives of the globe gathered in 1948, in the aftermath of unthinkable destruction and despair, we as one people—one human race—said, “Never again.” Fundamental to this united course of humanity was article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Today that is under threat, and it is under threat in the very institutions where it should be most treasured: our universities. Freedom of speech only matters when it is controversial —when it is challenging.”
“Freedom of speech is fundamental to everything we have, everything we are and everything we stand for. Over 300 years ago, it was this Parliament that enshrined our right to freedom of speech in law. The 1689 Bill of Rights became a symbol of hope for the rights of people everywhere throughout the globe. Since then, peoples and democracies the world over have followed our example.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes. I commend your efficiency, Madam Deputy Speaker. The principal reason that our kingdom is a great nation can be encompassed in one word: freedom—freedom of action, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom under the law. Of all those freedoms, the most precious is freedom of speech. It has been fundamental to the development of our culture, our society, our literature, our science and our economy. Indeed, our national wealth today owes more to the free exchange of ideas than to the exchange of goods.”
“The first thing that I will ask the Minister to do—not today obviously, but afterwards—is to look closely at that policy experiment and see whether vitamin D was the key to what is a spectacular success in cutting death rates by anybody’s measure. I believe that the Government in Madrid are reviewing it. So should we. For decades, researchers and medical professionals have been warning that there is a pandemic in vitamin D deficiency, with more than 1 billion people worldwide being vitamin D deficient. The warning bells for this ignored pandemic had been ringing long before the World Health Organisation declared the outbreak of covid-19 an official pandemic on 11 March last year. Those warnings should have been especially loud in the UK, as our vitamin deficiency levels have been described in a recent research study as “alarmingly high.””
“As the death rate per million climbs month by month, from 175 in November to 324 now, the strategy certainly is not working as well as we would hope. Compare that with Andalusia, a Spanish province of more than 8 million people. It started in November with a situation worse than ours—189 deaths per million as against 175—but which cut its death rate by at least two thirds while ours was doubling. That reduction, from between 50 and 70 deaths a day in November to between five and 15 deaths a day currently, started immediately after it initiated a programme of issuing calcifediol, the fast-acting high potency form of vitamin D, to at risk groups including care home residents.”
“May I start by giving my thanks to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who cannot be with us today, but who is a fantastic ally of mine in this campaign to help protect our public? Today, the nation is facing the second peak in the worst health crisis in living memory. To date, nearly 85,000 people have died. In November, the death rate was 175 fatalities per million, in December that figure was 222, and it looks as though January will be more than 324. To deal with this catastrophe, the Government are reluctantly instituting tough lockdowns and considering even tougher ones. Whether these measures work is disputed by some, but there is no doubt that they are incredibly costly—in economic damage, in individual freedom, in mental health, and even in lives lost to other causes.”
“Vitamin D is cheap; it is safe; it has many other proven health benefits; and, as the Government of Andalucía have shown, it could be a dramatically effective weapon in our fight against covid. There is no more time to waste. The time to act is now, Minister.”
“It is long past the point where we try anything with even a marginal chance of success to prevent those deaths rising even higher. Well, vitamin D has much more than a marginal chance of success: we now have good reason to believe that vitamin D supplementation will help reduce mortality from covid-19 and cut susceptibility to infection. It will save lives, improve population immunity, and help reduce the medical and economic impact as we continue the universal roll-out of vaccines. There is now no reason not to act. After all, in the Secretary of State’s own words, supplementation has “no downsides”—he was right. The surgeon general whom I quoted earlier said that we should not let covid-19 patients die with vitamin D deficiency while we “wait for perfect evidence”.”
“Vitamin D could be one of the tools that helps turn the tide in the fight against this terrible virus. Vaccines, of course, are now being rolled out, but it will still take some time to reach levels sufficient that lockdowns are no longer needed. The Government are doing a great job on vaccines, but there are limits to what they can do, and unlike the general effect of vitamin D sufficiency on the immune system, vaccines are very specific. If a person has a specific mutation, the vaccine can be rendered obsolete; that is not true of vitamin D. In the meantime, vitamin D supplements could be provided to all at-risk groups more quickly, and at a lower cost. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the UK has now had nearly 85,000 covid deaths.”
“However, those figures could be halved if the risk is more severe during the winter months and we just gave the dose then. The benefits would be enormous. That cost is a mere rounding error when we measure it against the cost of not defeating the pandemic or the cost of a lockdown. It is by no means a coincidence that the United Kingdom has one of the worst mortality rates in the world. After all, we have one of the worst rates of vitamin D deficiency in the world—about 40% of the population—and with that, very high levels of people with compromised immune systems. However, Public Health England continues to refuse to acknowledge the growing evidence linking vitamin D deficiency and poorer covid-19 outcomes, and for this, we are now paying the price.”
“Providing the supplement to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes is a small step in the right direction. However, it is a drop in the ocean compared with the action the Government should be taking overall. There needs to be a wider scheme providing supplements to all at-risk populations, including the elderly, the obese, minority ethnic groups, diabetics and people with high blood pressure. That would be a tiny cost compared with other health initiatives. A year’s supply of a daily dose is likely to cost about £15 a person, so allocating it to the identified risk groups would amount to £45 million. Allocating it to those groups plus every ethnic minority citizen would cost about £200 million, and allocating it to every clinically obese person and at-risk people in other categories would cost a little more.”
“The vitamin is safe in quite high doses. In the summer months, a person could sunbathe for 30 minutes and get the equivalent of 20,000 IU—much more than would be taken in a daily dose. All the modern toxicological evidence indicates that if there are any deleterious effects at all, they do not happen until a much higher dose than 20,000 IU. Even the NHS, which is very cautious on this, accepts that a dosage of 4,000 IU a day is perfectly safe; it says so on its website. What is needed to provide adequate protection against covid-19 is a significantly higher dose of up to 4,000 IU per day, particularly for those vulnerable groups that tend to be deficient in the vitamin—namely, the elderly, ethnic minorities and those suffering from a number of medical conditions.”
“That is in line with what the national health service currently recommends to tackle issues surrounding bone health. By contrast, the American health authorities recommend 600 IU to 800 IU depending on age. The latest research from the Royal College of Physicians recommends that health authorities should urgently recommend a higher supplementation of 800 IU to 1,000 IU a day, which would more than double the current daily recommended dose of vitamin D. However, even that dose—based on bone health—is not high enough to provide the additional benefits and protect against respiratory disorders such as covid-19 for those with existing deficiencies; it must be much, much higher. We are not aiming to protect elderly people in care homes from rickets. We are aiming to protect them from a lethal disease, which is a very different issue.”
“That is presumably why Dr Anthony Fauci, famously the head of the US Coronavirus Task Force—a difficult job at the time—has said: “There is good evidence that if you have a low vitamin D level… you have more of a propensity to get infected”. These are serious voices that are now backed up by serious evidence. To give the Government proper credit, they have instigated the provision of a supplement free of charge to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes. However, if supplementation is to have any material effect, the dosage has to be sufficient to correct the existing deficiency. Sadly, with the Government’s programme for the clinically extremely vulnerable, the supplementation falls far short of this. The Government are providing supplements of 400 international units, or IU.”
“They deduced that it was possible to use correlational data to show causality if certain other conditions could be shown: consistency of evidence, specificity of evidence, dose responsiveness and what they called temporality, which basically means that what happens first is the cause and what happens second is the effect—it is fairly obvious when you put it in English. The simple fact is that we can show that all the Bradford Hill criteria are met for vitamin D and covid-19 if we look at the many separate individually small but collectively persuasive studies. Every single one of the criteria can be seen to be met.”
“Richard Carmona, the 17th surgeon general of the United States, has said: “The response to the pandemic…should include an effort to aggressively eliminate what is becoming apparent as a morbidity and mortality risk factor in COVID-19—vitamin D deficiency.” Dr Carmona pointed out that the classical criteria for dealing with correlation evidence were, ironically, drawn up in this country by the great British physicians Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll in their study of smoking and lung cancer.”
“Evidence from the United Memorial Medical Center and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, both in the US, showed that they could get a more than 75% absolute risk-of-death reduction and reduction in mortality when treating patients with a cocktail of treatments including vitamin D. Researchers at Eastern Virginia Medical School who designed the protocol estimate that if their approach, including vitamin D-to-patient management, had been widely implemented at the start of the pandemic, it could have saved many, many thousands of lives. The results of these studies are stark and clear-cut, and what was originally dismissed in some quarters is now backed by leading medics around the globe.”
“Half of those not given vitamin D became so ill that they needed to be put in intensive care. By comparison, only one person of the 50 given vitamin D required ICU admission—just one. To put it another way, the use of vitamin D seemed to reduce a patient’s risk of needing intensive care twenty-fivefold. Other studies have shown, at a statistically significant level, large reductions in mortality too. There was an experimental study conducted at a nursing home in France with 66 participants. The outcome of that study was that taking regular vitamin D supplements was associated with less severe covid and a better survival rate.”
“Not only did it not do this, but two applications for funding to carry out random control trials were turned down. Since then, more general global evidence in many other countries has grown in strength, which makes the inaction all the more questionable. Several studies have been published showing how low vitamin D levels lead to poorer outcomes for covid-19 victims. In September 2020, the results of the world’s first randomised control trial—the gold standard of medical research—on vitamin D and covid-19 were published. The trial, conducted in the south of Spain at a hospital in Córdoba, involved 76 patients suffering from covid-19 sufficiently badly to have been hospitalised. Fifty of the patients were given vitamin D and the remaining 26 were not.”
“The Health Secretary, quite reasonably, handed this work to his health advisers and ordered them to undertake a rapid review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence attempted to analyse the statistical data and came back unconvinced. The problem is that correlation is not a proof of cause and effect, and a correlation, albeit a strong one, was all that we had at that point. In effect, NICE said that more data was necessary. One would think that at this point it would have initiated a large, well-designed random control trial to pin down the question: is vitamin D a causal factor in bad covid outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality? After all, it is an incredibly serious disease and this is a very cheap and safe treatment.”
“Early evidence suggested a strong link between the two, with studies showing that 40% of patients who suffered severe covid-19 outcomes were vitamin D deficient compared with 4% of those with sufficient levels of vitamin D. Moreover, mortality rates of vitamin D deficient patients were dramatically higher than for patients who had sufficient levels of vitamin D. These were correlational studies, so they were not proof of causality, but they were massively indicative given the prior evidence of the importance of vitamin D to the immune system. So this was startling evidence. Therefore, in early May last year, I wrote to the Health Secretary calling on the Government to urgently review the available evidence to assess the role that vitamin D could play in helping us to combat this dreaded virus.”
“This and other research showed that vitamin D had a critical role in the activation of both the innate and the adaptive immune systems and in modulating some of their responses, most notably the now infamous cytokine storms. Deficiency in vitamin D led to compromised immune systems and, as a result, susceptibility to a number of diseases, most particularly respiratory diseases but of course also covid-19. Despite this evidence to suggest that vitamin D has wider health benefits than just bone health, and despite our particularly exposed situation in the UK, our public health bodies have done little to correct this problem. At the beginning of the covid-19 crisis, several well-respected research teams noticed a high correspondence between low vitamin D levels—deficiency—in the blood and severity of covid-19 symptoms in patients.”
“It is an excellent idea and I do join him in that request. On the question of medical education, it has long been understood that vitamin D plays a critical role in calcium uptake and the prevention of diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis. That was what was thought to be its main effect. Since 1983, there has been a large amount of research demonstrating its critical involvement in the body’s immune system. Many of the mechanisms involved are now very well understood. By 2017, it had been clearly shown in a number of randomised clinical trials that vitamin D deficiency was a very significant issue in acute respiratory disorders such as flu, colds, pneumonia—the lot—and correcting the deficiency with supplementation could reduce the severity of symptoms by as much as 70%.”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanisms that this treaty has found are every bit as good as the mechanisms in the Canada treaty, for example, and all other treaties that reflect these tensions in free trade agreements?”
“In normal times, this House would have been packed to the rafters with people listening to the Prime Minister’s speech, because this is a new beginning for our country. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt that, in two days, our freedom and our sovereignty will be much greater than they were as a result of the treaty. In terms, the treaty is better—much better—than would have been achieved under the previous strategy. The Prime Minister and Lord Frost have done a fantastic job in delivering it. They delivered it by standing up to the European Union and calling its bluff successfully, time and time again. They have delivered an outcome that we can make the most of.”
“Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), we will have better than the exact same benefits, because we will have bigger opportunities in the rest of the world, as the Department for International Trade has already demonstrated, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. On that basis, I will vote for this treaty.”
“In five years’ time, the EU can trigger an end to the trade and transport elements. That is not impossible—we can deal with it—but we will have to devise a strategy for that. My point to the House is that we have to come back to this treaty and look at it in detail—all 1,200 pages—to devise a strategy, so that we do not get into conflicts with the European Union, fall into traps or get into acrimonious disputes with the member states. They are our neighbours and friends, and we have to devise a strategy that will keep them as neighbours and friends and maximise our joint benefits. If the House does that, we will have a bright future. To come back to the point made by the hon.”