Pharmacy First

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

I wish my hon. Friend a happy Brexit day. I will have to come back to him on that issue. The point is that the service is limited to minor urinary tract infections. That might be why it does not include men, but I will certainly get back to him on that point.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I and many—if not all—of my constituents very warmly welcome the statement. On integration with other NHS access services, if an individual were to dial NHS 111 with one of the conditions mentioned in the statement, would they be diverted to a pharmacy or to a GP first?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

To a pharmacy. NHS 111, GPs and urgent and emergency care can all refer to pharmacists for those particular common conditions.

Mental Health In-patient Services: Improving Safety

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Dr Strathdee did not particularly focus on staffing numbers, as far as I recall; she focused on some of the issues with care from staff. That was the nature of the concerns. On the ongoing risk, part of the reason why we commissioned the rapid review was to look, in particular, at the quality of data. There was a quantity of data that was not effective, and that often distracted staff from spending time with patients. There were also gaps in the quality of data that needed to be filled, and the document that will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses speaks to that point. That is why we are so keen to move at pace on learning lessons.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I welcome that sentence and the seriousness and speed with which this is being taken forward.

As a now non-practising consultant psychiatrist, I have a variety of declarations in this area, which are best summarised in the pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft Mental Health Bill. My constituents are waiting for the rebuild of the Abraham Cowley unit in my constituency, but the framework under which patients are looked after is very important. People in in-patient settings are, by definition, some of the most vulnerable people looked after by the NHS, and a fair proportion are a detained population. Could the Secretary of State update the House on how soon we will see the Government’s response to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee report on the draft Mental Health Bill and when we expect the proper Bill to be brought forward?

Mental Health Treatment and Support

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I will make some progress, but I would be happy to take further interventions after that.

Amid all the anguish and pain, one thing comes through: people cannot access the mental health services they need. The stark fact is that the way the UK’s mental health services are funded and distributed can exacerbate the problem, so instead of making people better, they are making them worse.

The current reality is that 1.6 million people are waiting for treatment. More than 1 million people had their referral closed without receiving any help in the last year alone. Last year, children in mental health crisis spent more than 900,000 hours in A&E and almost 400,000 children are on waiting lists. In the same period, adults experiencing a mental health crisis spent over 5.4 million hours in A&E. Black people are five times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white people. People with eating disorders are being put on a palliative care pathway.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Will the shadow Minister join me in welcoming the work the Government have done to bring forward the draft Mental Health Bill? We both sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Hopefully, the Bill will right some of those wrongs.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member on the draft Mental Health Bill. However, as I will say later in my speech, I have little confidence that the draft Mental Health Bill will move beyond the draft stage. We need to debate the issues in the House, to ensure that what we know needs to be fixed is actually fixed, so that we can help people in our communities, including black people, who are more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, and people with autism and neurodiversity, who are mistreated simply as a result of having that diagnosis, so that their lives can be better lived. We need these issues to come before the House, so that we can debate them and move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I should make a little progress before taking further interventions.

The Government are providing £150 million of capital investment in the NHS’s urgent and emergency care infrastructure for mental health over the next two years. Those interventions include £7 million for 90 new mental health ambulances, with the remaining £143 million going to more than 160 capital projects with a preventive focus. These include new urgent assessment and care centres, crisis cafés and crisis houses, health-based places of safety for people detained by the police and improvements to the NHS 111 and urgent mental health helplines. The hon. Member for Tooting talked about creating such facilities in the community, and we are already doing that. We are also investing £400 million between 2020-21 and 2023-24 to eradicate mental health dormitory accommodation, improving safety and dignity for patients. Twenty-nine projects have already been completed since the programme commenced in 2020-21, eradicating over 500 dormitory beds.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the construction of the new Abraham Cowley unit, which will eradicate the dormitories that were in my constituency?

[Neil O’Brien]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating that unit and his advocacy for people affected by mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As a now non-practising former consultant psychiatrist, I have a host of declarations I should make in terms of speaking in this debate. For the sake of brevity, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations as part of my work on the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee, which list them in full.

This is an important debate and I shall focus on two angles. One is the delivery of mental health care and treatment and the other is the framework for that. I want to celebrate today the rebuild of the Abraham Cowley unit in my constituency. It gets rid of the awful dormitories that have plagued mental health care and treatment for some time. They are now gone, and we will have a brand new, rebuilt mental hospital. In fact, tomorrow, I am going to the topping out ceremony on the site to see the progress in delivering that. It will make a huge difference to the delivery of mental health care.

I used to work as an in-patient consultant psychiatrist. When people come into hospital for in-patient psychiatric treatment, it is often at the most difficult times of their lives. It is critically important that our mental health estate is fit for purpose and is a therapeutic environment. For too long, the mental health hospital estate has been the second cousin to acute physical health care and I am delighted that we are driving change forward in my patch. If people need in-patient care and treatment, they will get it in a new hospital that is fit for purpose. I just want to celebrate that and thank everyone who has been involved in getting it over the line, as well as all the people who work in that sector, including those who are looking after the patients who would have been in the old hospital, which is now a building site, and going through a stressful period of transition while the new hospital is set up.

My second point is about the draft Mental Health Bill. A few years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, suggested that we should review the legal framework we use when we treat people who are unable to consent or do not consent to treatment. Around every 20 years or so, we go through this process. We should be proud as a country that we have always been at the forefront of driving forward legislation and legal frameworks for dealing with people who cannot consent to treatment, the law of best interests and capacity. I was fortunate to be a panel member of the Simon Wessely review. I did that as part of my previous academic life, so Members can imagine my pride and delight in being part of the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill.

I am slightly saddened by the debate today, because mental health—especially the frameworks we use to treat people who are severely unwell—needs to be above party politics. We are discussing the most invasive thing we do in medicine—detaining and treating people in hospital, sometimes for a substantial time. We need to think carefully about the right balance between choice, freedom and autonomy and making sure that people get the care that they need at the right time and under the right framework. I am glad that the Government have done pre-legislative scrutiny and we have worked on a cross-party basis to get this issue over the line. I hope that we will see the mental health Bill very soon.

My final point is about psychosis. The Government’s amendment mentions the treatment of psychosis, which I know is often missed out in these debates and when people talk about mental health. Psychosis is one of the most disabling mental disorders and far and away the most costly and impactful, because it can affect people when they are quite young—

[Vicky Ford]

It is incredibly helpful to have my hon. Friend’s detailed experience in this debate. Why does psychosis get missed out?

[Dr Spencer]

It is simply because of advocacy; the conditions debated tend to be mental health conditions for which people can advocate. We talk a lot about dementia, and the children of those suffering tend to advocate for them. For CAMHS, it is the parents who advocate. For common mental disorder, people are able to advocate for themselves, but psychosis can be—I do not want to make a broad generalisation—disabling and isolating, and can limit people’s ability to advocate for themselves. From my research, I know that psychosis can break down family relations and alienate people. I am nervous about broad generalisations, and for the most part people can get better and do very well, but in some cases psychosis can be very disabling and limit advocacy.

Draft Mental Health Bill 2022

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I am optimistic that if the Government adopt the recommendations we have made, we will have a much stronger Bill that recognises that we need to improve the care that is available to all patients and, in particular, that will deal with some of the racial disparities we currently see in the implementation of the Mental Health Act. We know that black people—particularly black men—are disproportionately detained under the Mental Health Act and are disproportionately likely to receive a community treatment order, or a CTO, as I would term it in professional jargon. There is also a disproportionate use of depot medication for black men. That has caused challenges in building therapeutic relationships and building trust with black communities across London and elsewhere, and it has to be put right.

We have made several recommendations. For example, we believe that the evidence for CTOs is weak for all patients, and there is a disproportionate use of CTOs among the black community, so we have said that we think community treatment orders should not be applied in the civil part of the Bill. We have also recommended greater monitoring of how mental health legislation is used in each mental health provider, to ensure that providers, be they in London or elsewhere, have a proper understanding of how mental health legislation is used. Hopefully, that will start the process of rebuilding the trust of communities—particularly the black community—with mental health providers where it has been lost in the past.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my range of interests in this area, which were declared as part of the Committee’s report. I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and join him in thanking all those involved in the Committee, in particular the Clerks and the staff, who were fantastic in supporting us as we put this report together.

Every 20 years or so, we go through a process of reviewing our mental health legislation. I am delighted at the work that has been done over the past few years through the Wessely review panel and driven by the Government, to make real changes in this very important area of law. Notwithstanding the huge step forward that the Bill will hopefully make in this area, does my hon. Friend agree that this is the beginning of a journey of continuous reform, rather than the end point?

[Dr Poulter]

The Committee was very lucky that we had the professional expertise of my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), a former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and some distinguished lawyers. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this issue for many years, and he is right: this is the beginning of a process, not an end in itself. The Committee recognised that much needed to be done by a future Government to bring fusion between mental capacity law and mental health law, of which I know he was a great advocate throughout our work.

Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am pleased to be here supporting the charity SUDC UK. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) who introduced me to the work of SUDC UK. I am proud to have played a very small part in helping to support it and getting this debate.

Last year, after said introduction, I had the pleasure of meeting Nikki Speed and Julia Rogers. They are two incredibly brave parents involved in SUDC UK, which is the charity that works to understand and prevent sudden unexplained death in childhood. I was saddened, upset and touched by their personal stories. I was also inspired by their commitment to supporting others, trying to improve understanding, pressing for further research into sudden unexplained death in children and making sure that others do not have to go through such a tragic event as they did.

As a parent myself, I cannot imagine anything worse than losing a child, but not knowing why they died must make it even harder still. While sudden unexplained death in childhood is frankly very rare, it affects about 40 children in the UK each year. That is 40 families each year facing the same questions and challenges. SUDC UK works to support those families and ensure that better and more consistent support is made available. Crucially, it campaigns to gather more information in the hope of understanding and ultimately preventing such deaths in future.

As a scientist by background, I agree that understanding has to be built on sound data, but the challenge with understanding sudden unexplained death in childhood begins at the very start. Currently, variation in investigation and certification following the sudden unexplained death of a child means we cannot know exactly how often SUDC occurs. There is no single specific code recorded, so gathering evidence on prevalence and mapping any factors or trends that might be present is very difficult, and the information is almost certainly incomplete.

Without that, it is difficult—nigh impossible—for research into SUDC to be conducted. Let us compare that with sudden infant death syndrome, which is the unexplained death, usually during sleep, of a seemingly healthy baby who is less than a year old. That is recorded. There have been thousands of studies conducted, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out, and research papers published, which have helped to contribute to the safer sleep advice that led to an 80% reduction in that category of infant deaths. In contrast, my understanding is that only 55 research papers into SUDC have been published worldwide.

The requests of SUDC UK are quite simple. It asks the Government to recognise SUDC and, by doing so, to ensure that consistent support is available for those affected. It also asks that clear, consistent information is provided about SUDC, for families and for the medics who may experience it in their careers. The charity asks the Government to support changes to enable clear and consistent data to be gathered, and research to take place as a result, so we can learn more about sudden unexplained death in childhood and, hopefully, learn one day how to prevent such tragedies. That makes complete sense when it comes to tackling the challenges and, we hope, turning around the horror that is sudden unexplained death in childhood. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and his and the Government’s thoughts on what we can do to take this forward.

In the spirit of the debate, I welcome the approach of Government and Opposition Members who see this as the start of a journey and of the work we need to do in this area to have the same impact on SUDC as has been made on SIDS over the years. I give my huge thanks to Nikki and Julia for their incredible strength and dedication to this work. There are a whole host of people involved in SUDC UK, and I thank everybody who is part of the team. It is incredible what they are doing by taking this forward. I hope the Minister and the Government support the work of SUDC UK not only in this debate, but in the months and years to come.

Healthcare Facilities: Weybridge

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am very grateful for having secured this debate. May I start by congratulating our England football team on a resounding victory today? I am hoping to have equal success after this Adjournment debate is completed.

In 2017, Weybridge Community Hospital burned down in a raging inferno so intense that local residents sought shelter in St James’s church. Weybridge Community Hospital was a much-loved community hospital that housed the Church Street and Rowan Tree practices, community nursing, physio, imaging and a walk-in centre in which people could be seen on the day. Now, both practices and community nursing operate out of temporary portakabins and buildings on the site. Even before the pandemic they faced challenges, with concerns around their ability to provide the sort of care that they wanted to provide out of the portakabins standing there.

The pandemic crystalised those pressures on the staff. They are a great team, and I thank all those who work there day in, day out for the benefit of local residents. We owe them and local residents more. I have visited the portakabins, and, quite simply, there is not enough space. Staff work out of rooms without any windows. The working environment is a sight to behold. People are crouched behind desks with files above, below and either side of them. They need more space for their working environment. It is not a pleasant environment to work in. The lack of availability of free rooms hampers the amount of clinical activity that they can do. They have difficulty recruiting. Despite that, they are doing their best and, again, I thank the team working there. But five years on, people living and working in Weybridge need permanent healthcare facilities to be rebuilt, not temporary facilities.

I know from speaking to my residents at their doors and in correspondence that this is a major concern in Weybridge. It is not purely about the current provision of care, which remains a challenge. Both Church Street and Rowan Tree practices have much larger numbers of patients per GP than the national average. There are also several housing proposals being mooted for Weybridge. My constituents already struggle to see a GP or healthcare practitioner. They are rightly saying to me that if the planning authority approves the proposals, it will only get worse. We urgently need improvement in our local infrastructure, of which healthcare is a key part.

Where are we now? Since 2017, there has been much consultation but progress has been hampered by repeated delays, the pandemic, the complexity of joint project working and now, of course, the challenges in terms of inflation. Many people loved the walk-in facilities that the community hospital used to have, but there is an understanding that in the post-pandemic world a walk-in centre is not possible. If we distil the essence of what the community hospital offered and meant to people, we get same-day access to care, whether that is advice from a pharmacist, nurse or member of the extended multidisciplinary team, or speaking to or seeing a GP. I am delighted that in response to feedback from me and other key stakeholders, the clinical commissioning group—now the integrated care system—has confirmed that that is what it is going to provide.

There has been much exploration of how the rebuild could be incorporated into wider town centre redevelopment, which would be of huge benefit to Weybridge. Over the past few years, discussions have included the redevelopment of the Weybridge library building, the development of a super-surgery, incentivising active travel and the creation of a broader community hub. Although the benefit to Weybridge of such improvements is irrefutable, my concern throughout has been the need to prioritise the rebuilding of the health facilities that are urgently needed. Although I share the ambition for town centre redevelopment and improvement, I worry that it would delay the provision needed today. I have argued that we need a two-phase approach to the work: first, get the permanent healthcare facilities rebuilt, and then secondly, move on to the more general town centre community rebuild. We should make sure that the rebuilding of the health facilities leaves options open in terms of the town centre redevelopment.

Many people have been involved in the project over the past five years. I give my personal thanks to Councillor Tim Oliver, who is both a county councillor for Weybridge and the leader of Surrey County Council, for his work and leadership in driving this issue forward. He is not only a county councillor but is involved in the ICS. Alongside the NHS team, which I also thank, he has led the work to drive this matter forward. I also thank the WeyBetter Weybridge team, which has been working on this issue and the wider redevelopment project. In particular, I give my thanks to David Arnold, the chair of the Weybridge Society. I am grateful for his discussions and feedback, alongside all the feedback I have received from local community groups. I thank residents for their engagement at community events and for their feedback to me.

Five years after the fire, our GPs, nurses and admin staff are still operating out of portakabins, not permanent healthcare facilities in Weybridge. Residents are waiting for appointments and not getting same-day access. Patients are still travelling to St Peter’s for physio and diagnostics rather than getting it in their community. We are at the point where work on the detailed plans is under way but no agreement has been reached for the sign-off of the funds needed. This is the crux of the issue.

By way of background, I should say that the NHS self-insures, which means that when there is an event such as the destruction of a building, the money comes out of the funds allocated to the whole NHS estate. That makes sense and saves the taxpayer money, but there is a drawback to the approach. If one approaches an insurance company, it pays out, after the usual wranglings. Where the company finds the money is not the problem of the person who has made the claim. There is a contract, liabilities and expectations. Under the self-insurance model, the contractual arrangements we would see in the private sector do not exist, so we are waiting for NHS Property Services to sign on the dotted line. I understand that it has offered only a proportion of the total amount of money needed for the rebuild, not the full cost, with the ICS and county council left to make up the difference. Not only does that put pressure on my local county council to make up the deficit, but it adds further delay and uncertainty. We already know the pressures that health services and local authorities face, with increased demand for health and social care. My residents should not be forced to face cuts in other local services in order to have adequate health services returned to Weybridge. That is the challenge in delivering the money that is needed for the project.

In summary, although local services are doing the best they can, we need this project agreed now, to provide certainty for residents.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Dr Spencer]

We need permanent healthcare facilities rebuilt in Weybridge. When the Minister responds, will he therefore address my concerns regarding the self-insurance model, confirm that NHSPS will cover the cost of the rebuild in its entirety, and agree that rebuilding health services in Weybridge is vital and already long overdue? I will continue to work to support local partners to get permanent healthcare facilities rebuilt in Weybridge. I again thank everyone involved in driving this project forward for all our residents.

Urgent and Emergency Care

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member makes a very fair point. Within the question he raises is the unmet need where an ambulance does not reach a patient in the community, as opposed to the known risk once the patient is within the hospital trust’s purview. On capacity in A&E, as I touched on in my statement, we put in £450 million at the 2020 spending review to upgrade A&E facilities at 120 trusts.

With respect to the hon. Member’s specific point, he may be aware of the letter that the NHS medical director Professor Stephen Powis and the chief nurse Ruth May sent at the time of the heatwave about where risk sits within hospitals. The taskforce has been doing further work on pre-cohorting, post-cohorting and observation bays so that we can better free up that ambulance capacity and get it back on the road.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the focus on retention, training and recruitment. Earlier this year, I met people from the excellent Chertsey Make Ready Centre. They told me about the challenges that they face with staff wellbeing and staff retention, which are compounded by the horrendous abuse that they receive almost daily. Sadly, it is not limited to our paramedic workers: I met staff at the Crouch Oak practice in Addlestone in my constituency recently, and we spoke about some of the vile messages and threats that they have received. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our health and care service workers for their fantastic work and in condemning the vile abuse that, sadly, some of them receive from a bunch of miscreants?

[Steve Barclay]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff for their work and in condemning the completely unacceptable violence, intimidation and abuse to which people are subjected. There should be zero tolerance of that from any hospital trust.

Health and Care Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to speak in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I thank them both for the contributions.

It will be no surprise to the House that I am here because I abide by the absolute view that both lives matter—the unborn child and the mother. I know that many people believe that if someone is anti-abortion, they are anti-woman. I am not—I never have been, never will be and it is not the case. I believe in life and helping people. My career and all my life have been based around that, and I will continue as long as God grants me the strength to do so.

The Minister referred in his introduction to the fact that the regional devolved Administrations will make their own decisions. They can make that decision in Scotland and Wales, but we cannot make that decision in Northern Ireland, because the Government made it here. They took that decision away from us, and I am particularly concerned about that.

I have several concerns about the approach adopted during the pandemic in relation to so-called telemedicine to access abortion, which was recognised at the time as short-term. Without a face-to-face appointment, there is no confirmation of how many weeks pregnant a woman is, which makes a difference to the experience of an abortion at home. As reported in the summary of consultation responses, women who had experienced an abortion said that information should be provided on

“how inaccurate dating of pregnancy may mean increased pain and bleeding”.

A woman whose pregnancy is later than 10 weeks could find herself unexpectedly passing a mature baby at home, which could lead to significantly more complications. I understand that those advocating for the Lords amendment argue that complications have decreased since the pandemic, but I question the evidence, given that the Government and the Minister’s Department say that

“data on complications is incomplete”

and they are working on reviewing the system of recording abortion complications.

I am also persuaded by the concerns about the increased possibility of a woman finding herself pressurised at home to have an abortion that she does not want, as other hon. Members have said. There is a well-known link between abortion and domestic violence. Indeed, the BBC published a survey a few weeks ago reporting that 15% of those surveyed said they had felt pressured into ending a pregnancy. How are we protecting those women? How can doctors know that they are really speaking to a woman who is voluntarily calling about an abortion, or even that they are speaking to the right person at the other end of the phone?

There are many differing and strong views on this subject on both sides of the House, but I question whether the women who find themselves coerced into an abortion from their home, or who have found themselves bleeding unexpectedly at home or having an abortion much later in their pregnancy than they expected, would agree that telemedicine abortion is a positive step in women’s health. I doubt that they would.

I have recently been vocal regarding the need for face-to-face GP appointments. I have been inundated by constituents who simply have no confidence that a diagnosis by picture or telephone call is safe. I have constituents whose cancer has been undiagnosed because the GP was unable to see first hand what would have been clear in a face-to-face appointment. I believe that face-to-face appointments should be available.

I find it difficult to understand how pills to end life—to take away life—in a painful manner for the mother can be given without seeing someone to assess what cannot be seen on the phone. The signs and movements that an experienced GP can see that point to a deeper problem cannot be discussed in the two minutes allocated to such phone calls and I am fearful that the duty of care that we are obliged to discharge will continue to be missed. I am diametrically and honestly opposed to this legislation, because as I said at the outset, both lives matter. Lives could have been saved if abortion had not been available on demand.

I will vote against the permanent extension of this ill-advised scheme today and urge hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to join me. It is a step backwards rather than forwards in providing adequate support and care for women, and it further normalises the practice of abortion as a phone call away rather than as a counselled decision under medical care, which is what it deserves to be. I, my constituents and my party are clear that this is a massive issue. I fully and absolutely oppose the Government in what they are putting forward today, for the safety of both mothers and the babies, because I am about saving lives, not destroying lives.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak on the subject of the health services safety investigations body and on abortions. I begin by making a couple of declarations: I am a now non-practising doctor, my wife works as a doctor, and I am a member of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

On the HSSIB, I will keep it brief. I hugely thank the Minister for supporting the Lords amendment and ensuring that we have those safe spaces for doctors. That is critical for the body to work and for us to learn from it. Hopefully, we can undo some of the harms of previous atrocities and what has happened to previous doctors, as has been referred to.

On abortion, it is important to say that I wholeheartedly support and believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion services, but the regulatory framework around them is complex and it is a sensitive area. As is clear from the powerful speeches that I have heard from both sides of the House, it is also sensitive for hon. Members. Many of my constituents—on both sides of the debate—care deeply and correspond regularly with me about it; I care deeply about it too. I have looked after women who are contemplating having an abortion and I have looked after women who have had abortions, so although I have never carried out one myself—I am a mental health doctor—I have seen it from both ends.

Public Health

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation and I am happy to make that really clear. It is vital that there is always an option for a lateral flow test. I would not support a vaccine-only option.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

In terms of providing proof of a negative lateral flow test, is that possible for someone who does not have access to the internet or a phone? What is the evidentiary requirement?

[Sajid Javid]

Lateral flow tests are available for everyone. The vast majority of people will have access to phones or through other ways. Once people have taken the lateral flow test and registered the result, perhaps with the help of someone in their family or a friend, they can get printed proof of that by using the 119 service. If there are other ways to improve that, of course we will, but we have found that that is available to the vast majority of people, including those who might not be as familiar with technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I will speak briefly to ensure colleagues can get in on this important debate.

I will go through the four measures and come up with some big questions that I think we need to ask about what we are doing and how things go forward. First, the self-isolation statutory instrument makes quite a lot of sense. I welcome the Government’s bringing in this change and bringing in daily testing.

On the vaccination of health staff, I declare an interest. I used to work as a doctor and my wife currently works as a doctor. I really have no issue with this measure. When I went through medical school, I had to be vaccinated. I would flip the argument on its head. I would be very concerned about a relative of mine going into hospital and being treated by someone who was unvaccinated. I would be very concerned about them getting covid and becoming very poorly. Fundamentally, this is a basic duty of care issue, but I recognise there are different views on that.

I struggle a bit with the mandatory face mask provisions. This, along with the working from home guidance, will cause harms. Given the Secretary of State’s update today on the omicron wave that is coming forward, I wonder what actual impacts it will have and what the harm-benefit ratio looks like, but there we are.

My real issue is with the covid status certificates. There are many reasons to be concerned about covid status certificates, but I will focus on one. As a doctor, I have spent my career looking after people who are marginalised: people with severe mental illness, people with a learning disability and the digitally excluded. Looking at the measures and the explanatory notes, I cannot see how one can show evidence of a negative test without having access to the internet or having a phone—how any validation process can go through. It is clear to me that it will exclude people. I cannot support excluding anyone, but especially those people who are the most marginalised in our society.

My big three questions relate to what comes next. I had a chat with the leaders of the Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency about what is happening and what their plans are for the next few weeks. They tell me that already, because of the pivot towards vaccination by primary care, they will have to look at shoring up A&E, because there will not be enough GP capacity and people will be going to A&E. That may have a knock-on effect. The hospital will have to cancel elective care so that A&E can be shored up. They do not want to cancel elective care. It is a great hospital trust and its leaders think they can get through and still do some elective measures. One thing they asked me to ask Ministers today is whether they can have flexibility on what they do around elective care to try to keep it going as much as possible.

There will be a cost in terms of missed GP appointments and missed screening. We have already seen what the cost was in the past year in terms of waiting lists and so on. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plan is to recover NHS as usual after we have got through this wave. Trust me, a protected NHS is not an NHS in which GPs abandon routine care to focus on vaccination. A protected NHS is one in which people can get their blood pressure screening or have a conversation about their mood. It is one in which health visitors see young families and have important conversations about whether a woman feels safe with her husband at home.

My second question is: what happens when the next vaccine escape variant comes? We all feel it is inevitable that another one will come after this wave, so what is the plan to prevent our having to repivot like this again? What is the long-term strategy for living with covid?

My third question is more of a plea. The costs of this pandemic have largely fallen on the shoulders of our children. Please, please, please, will the Minister confirm that there are no plans for mandatory restrictions on schools and that we will never again close our schools?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Health and Social Care

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend, along with many right hon. and hon. Members, is doing his bit to push the cause of his local hospital investment bid. As I said to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I commend that, but it would be wrong for me to be drawn while the process is still under way.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement on health and social care planning. The worry is, of course, that the omicron variant will put a lot of pressure on that planning. Will he update the House on where the Department has got in crunching the data on how dangerous or not omicron will be?

[Edward Argar]

The latest statistic I have on the number of cases in this country is, I believe, 42. That work is still being done. We have seen various news reports today on things that might be encouraging, but I encourage everyone to wait and see while that analysis is done. It will take two to three weeks for the scientists to do their amazing work in understanding whether this new variant is more infectious and more virulent as well as how it responds to therapeutics and vaccines, and I am afraid that we will have to be patient while they do that work. Hopefully, they will come back with positive news, but it is too early to say.