Covid-19: Vaccination of Children

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Miriam Cates]

I agree with my hon. Friend: there are some very difficult issues around parental consent and the vaccine, and whether any child can know enough about the potential benefits and risks. This is going to be a very difficult question for schools, health authorities and parents. I will say more about that later on.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

The advice being given out on consent forms states that you get to see your family doctor. However, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) challenged the former vaccines Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), on the ability of families to access their family doctor to get advice about vaccines, he could not and would not give an assurance that families could have that advice. Is not such access necessary, especially if the Government are stating on the vaccine form that you do have that access?

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Miriam to continue, Members ought to realise that when they say “you” they are referring to the Chair. Can we please try to get the formalities right? I know that it is less important on Zoom, but we are now back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Government, in their approach to lockdown, are creating some of the problems they believe make the situation worse? Weight Watchers and other organisations have said that people coming to them have put on an average of about 6 to 8 lb in weight, and are therefore physically more vulnerable now to covid and other health problems than they were before the pandemic.

[Miriam Cates]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure we can all empathise with those who have put on some lockdown pounds. A study, I think last week, showed that countries where over 50% of the adult population is overweight have experienced 10 times the death rate. A really effective way of reducing our risk in future would be to divert some of the money we are spending on testing asymptomatic people into drives against obesity and for exercise. That is an excellent point.

Even now, as adults, we are able to move freely from home to work, to Parliament and to the pub with no restrictions, yet children are still subject to asymptomatic testing, and many are being forced to wear masks in school and are missing out on important opportunities. We cannot expect our children to face greater restrictions than we ourselves are willing to bear. As a mother, I have despaired as I have watched the impact of those restrictions on my children and others. The stories that I have heard from constituents, particularly the parents of disabled children and those with additional needs, are horrifying. Millions of families have had to endure this. I pay tribute to UsforThem, which is working tirelessly to stand up for children and campaign for their lives to be allowed to return to normal.

What has saddened me most is the negative attitude to children that seems to have pervaded so much of our public discourse—especially the view that teenagers have behaved irresponsibly throughout the pandemic. That view is just not borne out by evidence. A study by King’s College London shows that, despite half of adults saying that young people have been selfish by ignoring restrictions, all age groups have been “remarkably compliant” and perceptions of selfishness are driven by “fake stereotypes”.

We seem to have forgotten what it means to be a child. We have forgotten that playing with other children, taking risks, feeling valued and enjoying physical contact with others are vital to healthy development. As a society, I fear that we are becoming a bit like Grandma from Roald Dahl’s “George’s Marvellous Medicine”:

“‘You know what’s the matter with you?’ the old woman said, staring at George over the rim of the teacup with those bright wicked little eyes. ‘You’re growing too fast. Boys who grow too fast become stupid and lazy.’

‘But I can’t help it if I’m growing fast, Grandma,’ George said.

‘Of course you can,’ she snapped. ‘Growing’s a nasty childish habit.’”

Things did not end well for Grandma, and things do not bode well for us if we fail to understand the nature and importance of childhood. Children are not disease spreaders, they are not a buffer for our healthcare system, and they are not an economic inconvenience. They are a blessing, they are our hope for the future, and their nurture and welfare should be our primary responsibility.

I am heartened by the care that has so far been taken by the JCVI, the chief medical officer and Ministers to reassure children and parents about the decision to vaccinate our young people, but looking forward we must recommit to putting the genuine and long-term interests of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens at the front and centre of policy making and prioritise their welfare as we recover from the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made so many important points. I also appreciate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for leading on the debate; I know many people right across the country are grateful for it, because this is an area of immense concern as their children are being vaccinated or not, as the case may be.

The country has gone through a difficult time over a long period. Who would have thought in March last year that we would be in this position now, debating whether 12-year-olds would be vaccinated to deal with this disease? At the beginning, there was very little certainty or scientific understanding of what we were facing. The scientific understanding has carried on apace; there has been a huge global effort to increase it, and on the medical side there has been a huge advance in how we treat people.

Covid is far less dangerous now than it was at the beginning, and we need to be clear about that, including when we look at the Government’s statistics on how deaths and other concerns are presented. To this day, they still show the overall death rate as including those deaths in the first and second waves. That makes us believe that we have not rolled out an effective vaccines programme and that doctors and people in hospitals are not far more effective at treating the disease itself. We are in a far better position, and that must be more clearly understood.

Initially, in January this year and December last year, the vaccine roll-out was pitched as protecting the most vulnerable: those who are old and those who have particular health challenges. Then, before we knew it, the ages were coming down and down. We got to age 18, and at the same time it was not a single vaccination, but a double vaccination that would give people the necessary protection. Now we are in the position of giving a booster vaccination to people in the near future. Initially it is being proposed for the over-50s, but will that come down as well?

The point I am making is that we have not been given any certainty over what the Government and their advisers deem to be success. It seems as though, because the system has not been given clarity about what success is, it carries on and on and the next group, the next group and the next group receive the vaccination. However, we know that in the first and second waves the connection between transmission, hospitalisation and death was strong. We know from Government data that, in the third wave, the connection between transmission, hospitalisation and death is fundamentally broken; it is nothing compared with what it was at the beginning. Our approach to covid therefore ought to reflect those facts.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I recall the pervasive disapproval that attached to my family when my children were at school and it became apparent that my wife was refusing to use the powerful chemical solution for the control of nits. When we come to schools being collectively vaccinated, the decision of some parents or children not to be vaccinated will undoubtedly be a matter of common knowledge—there is certainly the danger of that. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it will be difficult to prevent that general disapproval and all that may flow from it from being attached to parents or children who have decided not to be vaccinated?

[Chris Green]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. In school settings, it will be incredibly difficult to do this, and it will be variable. It will depend on the culture of the school and the school leadership. Some schools will be open and objective, and will say, “We will respect you, the family, for the decisions you make on behalf of your family,” but I am pretty certain that other schools will have a very difficult and challenging atmosphere for those 12-year-old children and their families if they do not comply.

I think that is a very dangerous route for us to go down and will cause so much pressure. That leads on to an immensely important point. Traditionally in the United Kingdom, our approach to vaccinations has been one of non-compulsion. Our vaccination take-up across the board has been very high because people trust the vaccination programme and that these things, which we can take voluntarily, are there for our own good. We do not need coercion to take them; they are there for our good so we will take them. What repercussions will we face in years to come now that there is a toxification due to the imposition of these vaccines?

What, furthermore, do we see? We see that the first and second waves had a huge impact on us, but the third wave is far less impactful. All our vaccines are effective against all variants of concern. We see compulsory vaccination in the care sector, no doubt shortly to be rolled out into the national health service, and therefore after that to other sectors in society. We see the establishment of the idea of vaccine IDs and domestic ID cards. There is a pause at the moment in England, but those causes are being advanced in Scotland and Wales. In many ways, we can objectively say that we are almost through the worst of the pandemic, yet the more draconian or authoritarian measures are being introduced at this stage. It is perverse.

[Miriam Cates]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He makes a very good point about trust in vaccinations, because we have an outstanding system of child vaccinations in this country, with very high uptake and no compulsion at all. That is predicated on the fact that parents know that those vaccines are without doubt in their children’s best interests. Polio, measles and all those other diseases are child killers and life-altering. Even if the risks are low, they are considerably higher than the vaccine. Therefore, understanding and trust are vital. Does he agree that it is very important to have transparency around the concerns now so that parents make a free decision and it does not impact on the outstanding roll-out of other vaccines that are very much in our children’s best interest and vital for continued public health?

[Chris Green]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Confidence needs to be restored in the wider vaccine programme. There needs to be a renewal of focus, because vaccinations for infants have dipped—slightly, but they have dipped. For older children and teenagers, the wider vaccine programme has dipped more substantially, so we need a significant catch-up in our broader vaccine programme.

We will also see increased concerns as drug companies seek approval to get the age for covid vaccines reduced to five years old. We therefore see the potential for an undefined point at which we can declare our position a success. If we do not have a clear understanding of what success means, will Government advisers say, “We now have approval for drugs to be given to five-year-olds, and that is the next step”? That question is for my hon. Friend the vaccines Minister, whom I welcome to the Front Bench. Will she clarify a couple of points? We here, broader society and health professionals outside the scope of Government can understand the end point. Professor Whitty said that at a certain point we will be able to treat the coronavirus as we treat influenza. What are the objective criteria by which we and others can judge that?

I asked the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), about the transition point when we as a society understand that we have moved from a pandemic disease where we need restrictions and other lockdown measures, and when we move to an endemic disease where we treat coronavirus as we treat influenza and other diseases, many of which are incredibly dangerous to people who are vulnerable—influenza is very dangerous for vulnerable people. We need to know when coronavirus goes from pandemic to endemic. We need objective criteria, because when the previous vaccines Minister replied to me, I could define what he said as, “We come out of pandemic status tomorrow” or, “We come out in 10 years’ time.” I do not think that is good enough when schools and families need more certainty.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.38. I call Andrew Lewer.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Dame Angela. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing a debate on this immensely important topic and for speaking so convincingly.

Despite what has been said, the JCVI’s recommendation on the mass vaccination of children aged 12 to 15 is clear. “The margin of benefit” in vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds is “too small” to support such a policy. That was the conclusion reached when the question was asked, as it should be in the case of medical decisions, about what would be in the best interests of our children’s health.

Throughout the pandemic we have continually been told of the importance of following the science. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her ministerial position, but will she explain why we are now disregarding the science and the experts who clearly said that it is not necessary nor advisable on the basis of the evidence we have for that cohort to receive a covid-19 vaccine? Given “fake news”, some people seize on any lack of clarity or inconsistency to be anti-vax, which I am not, and that is a real risk when the Government override trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) delineated so well.

If it is because of extraneous factors that have been mentioned in recent days, such as protecting children’s mental health and ensuring they miss no more school, it must be said that both of those problems have their root in Government decision making. School closures are a political choice. Testing regimes are at the bureaucratic insistence of the Department for Education. The fear that some children might have of dying from covid-19 has come from a created climate of fear, because the evidence shows that both children who are perfectly healthy and those who have underlying health conditions face a mortality rate from covid-19 of two in every 1 million. Children are therefore not at risk of death or serious illness from covid-19. In fact, most children are asymptomatic or experience a mild illness. Given that most vaccines do not prevent transmission and that those most at risk due to age or underlying health conditions have been double-vaccinated, this recommendation is not only unnecessary, but could be dangerous. We should be protecting our children and not taking unnecessary risks with their health in favour of some vague notion of perceived benefit to wider society.

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that initially the Government’s perspective was that we need a double vaccination for both protection and longevity of protection, yet 12 to 15-year-olds will receive only one dose, giving them relatively short-term protection? That is not consistent with the general stated aims of the vaccine programme.

[Andrew Lewer]

My hon. Friend very capably highlights yet another inconsistency. It is important to remember that any child who gets seriously ill or, heaven forbid, dies from a vaccine does so because of a policy decision and not a disease.

Turning to parental responsibility, many constituents who are parents have expressed their deep unease at the Government’s recommendation, and even more so that under the ill-advised Gillick principle children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. The Gillick principle has been cited as something that is set in stone and could never be changed, and as a sort of legal precedent as if this House, which exists to make law, could not override it, as many other things have been overridden apparently quite straightforwardly in the last couple of years.

The Gillick principle—it is unfortunate it is named after her given her background—means that children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. It has long been accepted in this country and in the thinking of my political background and heritage that children under the age of 18, and certainly under 16, should be the responsibility of their parents, that they should be guided and protected by them, and that parents, as adults, will make decisions in the best interests of their children. Only in exceptional circumstances should agents of the state interfere in that relationship and override a parent’s wish for their child.

I am deeply concerned by the increasing trend away from the Gillick principle. Just last week, we saw the High Court hand down a deeply concerning judgment that children under the age of 16 will be able to consent to taking puberty blockers without the need for parental permission. We are descending rapidly down a slippery slope. It is a mistake to allow children to circumvent parental control, especially when the long-term consequences of the vaccines are not yet clear. There has been limited research and data collected on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines for children.

I have been contacted by local teachers in my constituency of Northampton South who are receiving concerned emails from parents accusing schools of implementing this policy. I want it to be clear that this is a Government proposal and schools will have no liability in carrying out injections. I also want clarification from the Minister that vaccines will not be administered by school staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this important and timely debate on the vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds against covid-19. She quite rightly highlighted the importance of vaccine roll-outs and the programmes that we have had for many decades, and I thank her for that.

Before I respond to the various questions and points raised by hon. Members, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for his efforts in successfully delivering the vaccine programme, with more than 93 million doses administered in the UK and more than four fifths of adults receiving the protection of two jabs. I aim to build on that very solid foundation in my new role.

I also put on record that I am very grateful to everyone who has played a crucial role in the success of the vaccine roll-out, from our brilliant scientists, clinical trial participants, the armed forces, NHS England, frontline healthcare workers, vaccine volunteers and local and central Government. Our jabs have already prevented more than 112,000 deaths, 230,000 hospitalisations and more than 24 million infections. They have built a vast wall of defence for the British people.

Earlier this year, our medicines regulator, the MHRA, approved the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for 12 to 17-year-olds. The MHRA authorisation decision confirmed that vaccines are safe and effective for this age group. On this decision, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended vaccination for 12 to 15-year-olds with serious underlying health conditions. In August, the committee advised an initial dose of the vaccine for all healthy remaining 16 and 17-year-olds. The JCVI then looked at whether we should extend our offer of vaccination to all 12 to 15-year-olds. It concluded that there are health benefits to vaccinating this cohort, although they are finely balanced.

However, the JCVI’s remit does not include the wider impacts of vaccinations, such as the benefits for children in education or the mental health benefits that come from people knowing that they are protected from this deadly virus. The JCVI therefore advised that the Government might wish to seek further views on those wider impacts from the UK’s chief medical officers across all four nations. The Secretary of State and the Health Ministers from the devolved nations accepted that advice. Our CMOs consulted clinical experts and public health professionals from across the United Kingdom, such as those from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), who raised concerns about professional advice.

We received advice from the four chief medical officers, and it was made publicly available and deposited in the Library for Members to read in full. The unanimous recommendation of the UK’s chief medical officers is to offer all remaining 12 to 15-year-olds a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, with further JCVI guidance needed before any decision on a second dose. The CMOs have been clear that they make this recommendation based on the benefits to children alone, not on the benefits to adults or wider society.

I can confirm that the Government accepted this recommendation. We are now moving forward with the same sense of urgency that we have had at every point in our vaccination programme. I am delighted that a 14-year-old in Essex yesterday became one of the first children in the country to receive a covid-19 vaccination in school.

[Chris Green]

Will my hon. Friend set out exactly why it is recommended for adults to have two doses and perhaps later a booster dose of the vaccine, but for children it is a single dose?

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I reassure him that the evidence is continually being observed and recorded. Further advice will be taken on whether a second dose is needed for the younger age range. Evidence is being gathered all the time.

I appreciate that there are questions about how the process of consent will work in circumstances where parents and children disagree. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) that, as with all vaccinations for children, parental consent will be sought. The consent process is being handled by each school in its usual way and provides sufficiently for parents to give their consent. Children aged 12 to 15 will also be provided with information, usually in the form of a leaflet for their own use and to share and discuss with parents prior to the date on which the immunisation is scheduled.

Parental, guardian or carer consent will be sought by the school age immunisation service prior to vaccination, in line with other school vaccination programmes. That service will carry out the vaccinations, and I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. The school age vaccination service has vast experience of dealing with a number of other vaccine roll-outs in secondary schools, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine and the three-in-one teenage booster that protects against tetanus, diphtheria and polio. The clinicians who work on these roll-outs are very well equipped and very well versed in dealing with vaccines in schools.

In their advice, the four CMOs have said it is essential that children and young people aged 12 to 15, and their parents, are supported in whatever decisions they take, and that they are not stigmatised for accepting or not accepting the vaccination offer. Individual choice should be respected. It is the opportunity to be vaccinated that is on offer, in a fair and equitable manner.

To those who remain undecided, I say this. The MHRA is the best medical regulator in the world. It has rigorously reviewed the safety of our vaccines, and it only authorises those that it concludes are safe. Vaccines for children and young people are no exception. We continue to have a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy in place across all age groups to monitor the safety of all covid-19 vaccines that are approved for use in the UK.

I will now address some of the interventions and questions from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge asked a number of questions. I reiterate that the CMOs sought advice from experts in the field; it was not just the information they had themselves. It is only right that, based on that advice, 12 to 15-year-olds are able to take up the offer of the vaccine in a fair and equitable manner.

My hon. Friend asked about disruption to education from the programme. NHS England already has plans in place for the mop-up programme, which is not likely to be on school sites, to minimise disruption to education and the rest of the immunisation programme.

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is important that we do whatever we can—use whatever we have in our toolbox—to make sure that children are able to continue with their education, and vaccination is one part of that. I know my hon. Friend is passionate, as am I, about making sure that children get a full education, and that the pandemic does not affect their futures. My hon. Friend raised several other questions and, if she will allow me, I will write to her in response to any I do not answer in my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) raised questions about guidance for schools on the vaccination programme. How the programme will work has been set out very clearly, including in the formation of the consent process, most recently updated on 17 September 2021. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend, who highlighted the three words “do no harm”, that robust monitoring arrangements are in place for the vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds, and that further data will be available shortly.

I join the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) in absolutely condemning the threats and intimidation of headteachers, school staff and anybody who enters school premises. That is a big issue, and my advice is that headteachers who have received such intimidation should rapidly contact the school age immunisation service, which is well versed in addressing it. They should not be afraid to speak to the police and the local authority too. I assure her that that issue is extremely high on my priority list, which, as she can imagine, is getting longer.

It is important that we remember that our teenagers have shown great public spirit at every point during the pandemic, and I thank them for that. They have stuck to the rules so that lives can be saved and people kept safe, and they have been some of the most enthusiastic proponents of vaccines.

[Chris Green]

Certain drug companies are now looking to get approval for vaccinations for five-year-olds. Does the Minister rule that in or out in the United Kingdom?

[Maggie Throup]

My focus at the moment is on ensuring the effective roll-out of the programme for 12 to 15-year-olds. We must ensure that the booster programme is rolled out effectively, and encourage the last few people who have not yet had the vaccine—I think it is about 5 million—to take up that offer.

Covid-19 Vaccinations: 12 to 15-year-olds

Chris Green Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

There will be no question of discriminating in any way between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Vaccinations are voluntary and will remain so.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend acknowledges there is a small hazard with the vaccine programme, which is why there is one jab for these younger children. Will he confirm that all families will have access to their trusted family GP to get advice and understanding on the hazards before they are expected to make a decision on this important matter?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The best way for parents and families to make that decision is through the tried and tested process of the school age vaccination programme, and through schools sharing information and having a consent form that parents have to sign and return before the vaccination programme is scheduled.

Covid Vaccine Passports

Chris Green Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

We have spent a lot of time, energy and resource on ensuring that those with medical exemptions, who have underlying medical conditions, were prioritised in both category 4 and 6 of phase 1 of the vaccination programme, as the hon. Member will recall. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has gone further for the immunosuppressed. As I said earlier, there will be exemptions from this particular set of rules for people who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated or cannot have a test for medical conditions.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the duration of these passports, whether they are passed by the Government or it is done by a vote, would only last as long as it is considered that the United Kingdom was in a pandemic state, not an endemic state, in terms of the disease? Will he also set out when that transition happens so that we can judge and understand it for ourselves?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s thoughtful question. There is great difficulty with knowing at what stage we feel confident that the virus has transitioned from pandemic to endemic. We have now entered a period of equilibrium with the virus because of the success of the vaccination programme. The upward pressure on infections is obviously schools going back. The downward pressure on infections will be the booster programme and mitigating policies like the one we are debating. The Government certainly do not see this as a long-term power grab to restrict people’s liberties.

Covid-19 Update

Chris Green Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend has heard me say today that no one embarks on this lightly, and it is not in the Prime Minister’s DNA to curtail people’s freedoms. It is purely so that we can have sustainable continuation of an open economy that we would introduce such programmes. I do not know—if anyone claims otherwise, they are foolhardy or foolish—when we can definitely say that the virus has transitioned from pandemic to endemic status.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Medical autonomy on vaccinations has been removed from workers in care home settings, so when will medical autonomy be removed from nurses, doctors and consultants in the NHS?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

In the original consultation on social care conditions of deployment, which we eventually introduced and have discussed today, part of the feedback was that we should consult on the wider health service, including frontline healthcare workers. By the way, I commend both social care and healthcare workers because the majority of them have come forward to be vaccinated. Indeed, more than 94% of frontline healthcare workers have had both doses. We will bring forward a consultation on this, because there is a duty of care for those looking after vulnerable people in hospitals or care homes to be protected against covid.

Covid-19 Update

Chris Green Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s question. I would just remind him that the Treasury has put £407 billion to work to shelter the economy and people’s livelihoods and, of course, protect jobs. He raises a number of important questions about looking at other countries. As I said earlier, these are all difficult decisions, but I think we are making the right, cautious decision as we transition—I hope—and see this virus move from pandemic to endemic status.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend give me a better sense of the scope of how the covid ID card may be used in the future? Would it apply to the London marathon? Would it apply to political gatherings: would someone need an ID card to attend a political gathering, whether supportive of or in opposition to the Government? Could he please rule out its use in educational settings such as sixth-form colleges or universities, which should be excluded? The focus now is on young adults, and the ID card should not be a passport to education or a denial of education.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

On the last question, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that in education or in any public buildings this will not be applicable. As to things such as the transport system or essential retail, that is our very strong commitment. Look, I keep repeating this message, but we know what we need to do. Part of what we are learning from the data here and around the world is about trying to work with industries, such as the nightclub industry and sports bodies, to make sure that we reopen fully as safely as possible and continue to be open. The worst thing for any industry or for any sport is to open and then, sadly, to have to shut down again, as people have seen around the world.

Coronavirus

Chris Green Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

The Government assert that they do not have a zero covid policy or a zero covid strategy. If I accept that that is the case, it does seem as though it is a 0.1 covid strategy: it is almost zero, but not quite. At the same time, the Government accept that the disease is endemic. This is a very curious position, in which it is endemic, but the Government are still trying to get the disease as close to zero as possible. I would suggest that that requires pretty robust action from the Government for the long term.

The original lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the national health service. Even though the Nightingale hospitals were soon mothballed and then closed, that was not enough. Lockdown was then intended to enable test, track, trace and isolate to get up to speed, and it must surely be there by now, but again, that was not enough. Then it was to vaccinate the most vulnerable—the over-50s or the most frail in our society. This was when the narrative was that the first dose would provide the vast majority of the protection required—far better than the influenza jab—and the second jab, at that point, was only really to give longevity to the resistance to covid that would be required. The expectation, at that stage, was that this would cut the overwhelming majority of deaths and hospitalisations, and this is the case, but still that was not enough. Then it was to have everyone then given the second dose. That has almost been achieved, but as the Secretary of State announced a short while ago, the roll-out of vaccinations has now extended so that 21-year-olds can sign up to get them. Again, that seems not to be enough.

In Bolton, we have been through a very difficult time—there has been an amazing amount of good work and hard work from so many locally—but with this new Indian variant, or variant of concern, we have coped. The impact on our health service was far less than during the peak in January. The NHS held up, and I believe that it is quite clear now that the link between transmission, hospitalisation and death has been severed. Again, that is not enough to find our lockdown terminus.

The narrative seems to have shifted in recent weeks. It was initially about dealing with the Indian variant and seeing how risky and dangerous it was to the country. I think that the evidence available at the moment shows that we can cope with it, but the position now seems to have shifted from dealing with the Indian variant and trying to understand it to offering the first dose to every adult of 18 and over. As night follows day, that will still not be enough.

Earlier this week, the Health Secretary was to some extent downplaying the value of the first dose and promoting that of the second. Should we now anticipate a shift later in the year to every adult being offered the second dose as well? That would take us well into September and perhaps a little beyond. We can see the rolling of the pitch for child vaccinations and for compulsory vaccination of certain care workers and perhaps others.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Could my hon. Friend and Greater Manchester neighbour reflect briefly on his experience in Bolton and the declining case rates?

[Chris Green]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, Transmission in Bolton is clearly on the way down. That demonstrates the actions taken and the effect of the particular variant of concern, which had more impact in Bolton than almost anywhere else in the country. It should give reassurance to the country that we can cope without a further extension of measures that are having such an impact on so many people. For example, the waiting list of 5 million for hospital treatment would be far longer if people had better access to GPs to get those referrals.

The G7 is suggesting a global vaccine programme. Would we have to wait until that has been delivered, because until everyone is safe, no one is safe? When the Prime Minister refers to a terminus, I fear that he does not mean the end, but that he is thinking more of a bus terminus where we end one journey to start another—and that there will be another vehicle to impose another lockdown extension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend reminds us all how we can have different roles in this House. It is worth noting that, as a former Government Chief Whip, I do not find not supporting the Government a particularly comfortable place to be. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, sometimes we have to put what we believe to be the interests of our country first, and that is what I feel I am doing.

I want to draw attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, because he is right. There are documents with Government—I am not saying that these have been agreed by Ministers, but certainly this advice is being given to Ministers—that Government should aim to have a very low prevalence of covid. That is not zero covid, but it is not a great distance away. If Ministers were to agree to that strategy, it would mean restrictions going on for the foreseeable future, and that is one of the things that we are very concerned about.

I note, at this point, what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said: the Labour Benches are somewhat empty—the Back Benches are completely empty— and it is colleagues on the Government side of the House who are holding the Government to account. I accept that the Government may occasionally find that uncomfortable, but it is our role as Members of Parliament.

I always find it helpful to draw attention to the documents actually before us. For those who do not know, we have an explanatory memorandum, which explains what it is we are voting on today. It has been prepared by the Department of Health and Social Care and it will have been approved by a Minister of the Crown. It is very clear, and it is worth reading. Paragraph 7.3, bullet two, makes it clear that the Government will

“likely be able to offer a first dose”

of vaccine

“to all adults…by July, but the vaccinations”

themselves will probably not take place until August “due to supply constraints.” We know that it takes two or three weeks until those vaccinations are effective, so those adults will not actually be protected until later in August, so that means that this delay is therefore pointless, or alternatively, that we are not going to cease these restrictions on 19 July if vaccinating all adults is the goal.

If we then turn to the review dates and whether this is indeed a terminus, paragraphs 7.4 to 7.7 are very interesting. There is a review required by the Secretary of State every 35 days. The first review, according to this, is not due until Monday 19 July. There is no mention here of an earlier review after two weeks—

“the first review due by Monday 19th July 2021.”

It says that

“England will remain at Step 3 for a further 4 weeks (subject to further review).”

It also says that the primary purpose of extending these regulations is

“to gather more evidence that the…tests can be met”—

not that these rules will expire after four weeks never to be reintroduced, but to gather evidence for tests to be met and then for a decision to be taken about whether these restrictions are to continue. The second reason given is to

“allow more people to receive vaccinations…further reducing these risks”,

as Ministers have said, but as I just pointed out, the first doses are not going to be delivered until August, so that makes no sense. Something does not add up here, and we are concerned that these regulations are not going to end on 19 July.

[Chris Green]

In the context of timetables and how things are going to pan out in the near future, it is now the Government’s intention to ensure the vaccination of a very large number of care workers. That is presumably going to take legislation and a period of time for them to have a vaccination, and perhaps a second vaccination, and to deal with all the other problems. If this is a requirement for the Government to be able to deliver an exit from lockdown, how long will that take?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is part of the reason why we are concerned. If this was genuinely going to be the end of it, that would be one thing. I have listened carefully to the Members who have spoken and a number have said that they will support the Government on this occasion, but this is it. I am afraid that we have heard that before and it has turned out not to be true, and I am afraid, just from reading the documents in front of us, that that is why I have some scepticism.

The final thing I will say—I hope the Minister who will be winding up the debate, who I have a great deal of respect for, can clarify this—is that I am not quite sure what is going to happen at the end. The review of the evidence that has been gathered about whether the tests are met is not due to be done until 19 July, so I am not clear about when Ministers are going to come to Parliament to set out whether those four tests have been met. Is it going to be on 19 July, or is it going to be before 19 July? I am not clear whether they are going to give that one week’s notice—all the way through the road map so far, we have had four weeks, then a week’s notice. I am not quite clear about the timetable, and this is important, because, as has been said, people’s lives will now be reoriented around that new date, including weddings, family events and people’s plans. It is important that our constituents know what to expect. When can they expect a decision? When can they expect to know what their life will look like? It is because of concerns about whether the regulations really are the end that I will, I am afraid, vote against them this evening.

My final point is on the motion about proceedings in this House. It is my strong view that, although it has been welcome that we have been able to have Parliament meet through a pandemic, and thanks should go to all the parliamentary staff who have made that possible, it is, I think, indisputable that this Parliament, in its current form, is not as effective in holding the Government to account and enabling us to do our job as Parliament should be. I think that we should get back to as normal as possible in this House as fast as we can. For that reason I will also vote against the motion to continue these proceedings effectively until we return in September.

Covid-19

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Lady asked a similar question last week, and Professor Harnden of the JCVI said that the problem with antibody testing is what it really tells us. I will happily ask the question again on her behalf of the JCVI. Suffice it to say that on 17 May we put out guidance to employers saying that those who are shielding and immunocompromised should be allowed to work from home if they need to.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s position on the coronavirus pandemic is that it is still a question of life and death, that communications are vital in this effort and that compliance follows confidence, which in turn follows competence? Will he confirm when these local lockdown measures were agreed with the leadership at Bolton Council and when the Prime Minister formally agreed to this updated guidance being imposed?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Prime Minister addressed this issue on 14 May.

Coronavirus

Chris Green Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I open up by wishing everyone well on what has been a rather unhappy first anniversary of covid lockdowns and the passing of the Coronavirus Act. I do not think it has been a very happy time for anyone around the country.

The incredible success of the vaccination programme—whether it is the technicians, engineers and scientists or the roll-out itself—has been much more of a positive and its effectiveness has been startling. I do not think that a year ago anyone would have expected to be at this stage. The United Kingdom is leading Europe and the world in vaccine delivery.

The Secretary of State ought to be proud of that success. He has spoken of that sense of breaking the link between transmission, hospitalisation and death. That link is fracturing in a very significant way. At the moment, we are pretty much able to say that that link has broken. At the end of this month—certainly next month—that link between transmission, death and hospitalisation will have gone.

I welcome the fact that we are now seeking to retire certain temporary provisions. Some were never needed and some were needed only for a temporary period and are no longer needed. But I am concerned that the Government are seeking to retain schedule 21, the provision for controlling people, given that there has been a 100% failure rate for prosecutions. I am also concerned that schedule 22, for controlling gatherings, is also being retained. That has not even been used over the past year, and we have been through the worst parts of the lockdown. It has not been as bad as some of the projections have suggested, but it has been a pretty bad time for a great many people, so why are we seeking to retain schedule 22, which was never needed during the worst of times?

I am also concerned by the increasing political narrative conveyed through the media of compulsion in vaccination, including with children being vaccinated—children who suffer so little, if at all, from the virus itself. We are going on now about vaccine passports, and the covid status certificate is a very concerning issue. I think that is being increasingly raised, and it seems to be inevitable. I just wonder about the European football championships, which will be held later this year, and whether the Prime Minister’s offer to hold them in the United Kingdom will be used to showcase how effective such certificates can be. Is that the reason that schedule 22 has been retained—for the control of people at those sorts of events? Will it be restricted just to those events, or could it be widened out further to pubs and restaurants, public transport, places of work or places of education?

I am not sure these concerns have been decisively ruled out, and I do think that the debate should be had. It would be welcome if my hon. Friend the Minister explained the retention of schedule 22; we have been going through this for a year now, and we must know exactly why it is being retained.

Covid-19: Community Pharmacies

Chris Green Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), because she effectively puts over the concerns of many colleagues across the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this important debate and making a powerful speech championing the sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister, and the whole Health team, have done amazing work in general, but particularly over this recent period. For the wider agenda of the health service, pharmacies and high-street chemists are an important part of how we want the health system to evolve in the future. Making sure that this sector is secure, and can perform, in the long term ought to be a key part of her thinking about the way we support these places in the future. I did not appreciate just how many pharmacies there are right around the country. There are 11,500, with nearly 43,000 pharmacists and more than 19,000 technicians. As has rightly been highlighted, they are all medical professionals. There have been significant financial pressures, which, if not addressed, may challenge the ability of the Health team to develop and deliver effective health services in the future.

Through the pandemic era of the last year or so, access to GPs, hospital admissions and visits to accident and emergency have all been reduced. Those three sectors, and other aspects, too, are part of the loss from the mainstream NHS that local chemists on our high streets have taken up. We ought to credit them for that. It has put enormous stress and strain on those on the frontline in community chemists. They suffer all the pressure of additional hours, busier working lives, and concerns and fears about the risk of covid infection, as well as the pressure on chemists if someone is sent home for a period of time after a positive test. All those things add pressure. To some extent, for community chemists, as with GPs, there is vocational element, but there is also the aspect of the significant costs they have faced, which must be addressed.

Before the covid crisis began, there were significant concerns about the long-term financial viability of the sector, and I think those concerns have now been compounded. I express my appreciation of the chemists right across my constituency, especially those at Hootons pharmacy in Horwich, because of the work that they are doing on the vaccine roll-out, and for what they have done at the University of Bolton stadium to give so many people access to vaccinations. I support the recommendations of the APPG for pharmacies. Although we would normally want to reduce aches and pains and coughs and colds, will the Minister ensure that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister cough up the cash for community chemists?

Covid-19

Chris Green Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Often in this Chamber we look at the impact in terms of hospitalisations, infection rates and deaths from covid, but—absolutely rightly—we also look at the impacts more broadly, and she highlights that it is not just deaths or illnesses directly attributable to covid that have an impact on people’s lives, health and wellbeing. However, I come back to the point that the programme and the dates we have set out are reasonable, pragmatic and supported by what we believe reflects the roll-out of the vaccine to the different groups, and they give the public a degree of predictability that has not been there before. I share what I surmise is her view: I would not wish these restrictions to stay in place a day longer than absolutely necessary—I hope I do not misattribute a view to her there. What the Prime Minister set out earlier today achieves that, and does it in a very measured and sensible way that reduces significantly any risk of our seeing things slide backwards.

I am conscious of time. As the Prime Minister has set out before the House, all schools and colleges will return to face-to-face education on 8 March—

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

Very briefly, but this is the last intervention I will take from colleagues, I am afraid.

[Chris Green]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he confirm one way or the other whether secondary school children will be compelled to wear masks in the classroom while they are trying to learn?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who highlights a point that, along with others, will be concerning parents and pupils. As we set out the plan for unlocking and reopening our schools, which my right hon Friend the Education Secretary will add more detail to, we will look at how we can create an environment that is not only safe but that allows children and young people to learn, socialise and enjoy the benefits of not just education but being back in school. I know that my right hon. Friend will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s point.

As I have just alluded to, we know how important being in school is for children—not only for their education but, as I said, for their social development and mental health. That is why it is a crucial first step, and getting children back into classrooms has unquestionably been the Government’s chief priority.

Within that first step, we also want to begin to meet that other great desire—for families to see those they love. From 8 March, every care home resident will be able to nominate a named visitor, who will be able to visit. From 29 March, up to six people, or two households, will be able to meet outdoors. At that point, outdoor sports will also be permitted, as long as they are in groups of up to six.

In respect of households meeting outdoors, I—I dare say along with many others in this House—look forward to that very much. Aside from a family funeral, 2019 was the last time I saw my parents in person, and I suspect that that goes for many people in this Chamber and, indeed, up and down the country. So we do understand just how important this issue is, and I believe that these first steps recognise that vital desire for human contact and for seeing friends and family. Our ambition is to maintain a healthy lifestyle, while also reflecting our continuing need to save lives, but until 29 March, our message continues to be, “Stay at home and stay local.”

As the Prime Minister set out, the road map sets out a broader package of measures for step two, which will be no earlier than 12 April. The rule of six, or two households, will continue to apply outdoors. Non-essential retail and personal care will be permitted to reopen, and domestic overnight stays in England will be allowed for individual households and bubbles in self-contained accommodation. The majority of outdoor settings will reopen, and hospitality, such as pubs and restaurants, will be allowed to resume table service to customers outdoors. At this point, we will also take a decision on whether we can extend the number of visitors to residents in care homes and set out a plan for the next phase of visits.

Step three, no earlier than 17 May, will take us closer to that normal life we yearn for, with the majority of legal restrictions on meeting others outdoors removed, although gatherings will be capped at 30 people. Six people or two households will be able to meet indoors, and indoor hospitality, entertainment and sports will be allowed. Finally, step four, no earlier than 21 June, will see us take key steps to larger scale events.

The Prime Minister set out in more detail the reviews that would underpin the steps and the support being put in place at this time and the support being continued for those who are affected. Conscious of time, I will not recount everything that my right hon. Friend said at this Dispatch Box just a short hour or two ago.

As we look to brighter days ahead, there are still difficult days immediately in front of us. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be setting out how we will continue to support businesses and individuals through this difficult time and how we can build back better in his Budget statement on 3 March. We will do all we can to ensure that British people remain safe: working to keep uptake of the vaccine high, continuing to ramp up testing, including normalising workplace testing as people return to their workplace in increasing numbers, and ensuring that we take proportionate steps at our borders to protect against new variants from abroad and, indeed, to protect the progress we have made as a country.

It is right, even as we move forward, that we tread carefully through the weeks ahead. I understand and can entirely appreciate the points made by hon. and right hon. Friends from their understandable desire to move faster where we can. The Prime Minister understands that, too. I know him well, and no one more than he will want to see restrictions in place a single day longer than is necessary, but we have learned that this virus can move in unpredictable ways.

We owe it to the NHS and social care staff on the frontline, to everyone involved in our incredible vaccine roll-out and, of course, to everyone in this country who has made such tremendous sacrifices over the past year to hold on to and build on the progress we have made. I believe we can do it by once more working together as a country, unified by a shared determination to see this disease beaten and to see our country return to normal. It has been a long and challenging path we have taken together, but as I stand here today, I do so with confidence in this road map—that route back to the future we all wish to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Colleagues have been right to highlight the medical advances, which have been extraordinary, both on the vaccination front and in terms of treatment in hospitals. At the end of phase 1, we are told to anticipate that 99% of potential deaths will be averted. That is a great positive achievement that this country has made, and it may even bring the threat of covid down to the level of flu.

The very slow unwinding of lockdown will have ongoing costs, whether that is to education, health, employment or, indeed, civil liberties. Every day lost is a cost to people’s health, wealth and liberty. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on digital immunity documentation, but the Government have dismissed concerns about freedom passes, whether those are national identity cards or perhaps digital footprints.

The Prime Minister has now announced in his statement the potential role of covid status certification in helping venues open safely. We have yet to find out the details of what that will mean, but does it mean that the Government’s covid exit strategy of mass testing and vaccinations is ultimately dependent in a significant way on a national database? If so, will my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out the details of what this database will entail and how it will be used? How will it be monitored and how will what data is included on it, and its breadth, be challenged? Will the test and trace data go from Health at one end to the police at the other? Can the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Transport and all these facets of Government be involved in some way or another in this database that is connected in one way or another with the covid status certification? Will that in turn link with, as has been highlighted, helping venues to open safely? Will that in turn therefore mean that the Government can prioritise access to certain activities and certain facilities, and therefore can the Government determine whether people can go to the pub, go to a concert, use public transport or go to work or education?