Covid-19 Update

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We are moving to a system where the advice is to call 111 First and then go to A&E, or call 999 if it is an emergency and you need an ambulance. That system will not only help people to be triaged for the right treatment, which may be to see a GP, go to an urgent treatment centre or go to A&E. It will also help the emergency department to know that people are coming. The combination of the two is critical. We are rolling this out over the next couple of months, and we aim to have it in place across the country by 1 December.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Despite what the Secretary of State has said today, we are still hearing myriad stories of people—our constituents—being unable to get tested. The worst story I have heard is a constituent who was told to travel 600 miles to Aberdeen to get a test. Why is that the case, when we are constantly told by Ministers that there is no problem?

[Matt Hancock]

Nobody has addressed the problems and challenges in the testing system more than me. We need to resolve those problems, as we have in very large part resolved the problem of people being sent long distances. I would love to know the example that the hon. Gentleman cites, because I am told that that problem in the system was fixed last week, and if there is a more recent example, I want to know about it.

Covid-19

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This is a very important question. Essentially, part of the research into the vaccine is research into its efficacy, which is about research into the immune response that it provokes—the antibody response and the T cell response, both of which have an impact. We are doing a huge amount of work on that and I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Could the Secretary of State now answer a question that he has been asked repeatedly this afternoon about the creation of the National Institute for Health Protection? What persuaded him, in the middle of August, that it was a great idea to reorganise the structure of public health in the middle of the worst pandemic for 100 years, which is a bit analogous to reorganising the fire brigade in the middle of a blaze?

[Matt Hancock]

It is important to bring together the leadership on test and trace, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the leadership from Public Health England into one place to make sure that our response is as effective as it possibly can be and that we are constantly searching to have the best possible response to the virus.

Covid-19 Response

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I can absolutely confirm that. I know my hon. Friend understands this, not least because I think that both her parents are doctors who are absolutely in the heat of this. In terms of the data publication, when I asked PHE to undertake this piece of work, I asked it to produce it by the end of May, which it did. It delivered it to me on Sunday, and we have published it and brought it to the House at the earliest opportunity.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to the previous question, is the Secretary of State saying that the publication of the report by Public Health England into the wildly disproportionate level of deaths among ethnic minority communities was delayed purely because further work was needed on elements of it? In that case, at what point will it be published?

[Matt Hancock]

No, I am not saying that. I asked Public Health England to produce this work because I was very worried by the evidence of the increased morbidity and mortality among black and minority ethnic communities. I gave a deadline of the end of May. The work was delivered to me on Sunday, at the end of May. I considered it yesterday and brought it to the House at the first chance.

Covid-19

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Many of us have thousands of constituents who are either on zero-hours contracts or are self-employed. I have raised this question before, but unless the Government can offer those people some sort of minimum income guarantee, they will quickly be facing repossession and homelessness.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I understand that, and it is part of the discussions I have been having with the Welfare Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Coronavirus

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly on the first point. On the second, it is absolutely true that the MOD is working alongside the Department for International Development, and of course the Foreign Office, to support Brits overseas.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Returning to the issue of statutory sick pay, can the Secretary of State confirm that all the relevant Departments are in agreement that SSP should be paid to self-employed people who are told to self-isolate?

[Matt Hancock]

We are all in agreement that nobody, including those who are self-employed, should be penalised for doing the right thing. How we get that support to them is a different question, because SSP is paid by the employer and the self-employed do not have an employer. We will bring forward a solution to that particular policy conundrum.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

It is disappointing that the leave campaign seems to want to focus on process issues such as this rather than discussing whether we would be better off inside a reformed European Union, as I believe we would. My hon. Friend raises an important point. If any Members do not think that the rules should operate in the way we published last week, the only other position would be for the civil service to support a position that was not the Government’s position, which would go against everything that it was set up to do.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Is not the Prime Minister effectively saying to his own Ministers, “You can exercise your democratic rights as long as you agree with me at the end of the day”? Is this not the latest sordid attempt—there will be more—to rig the referendum to get the result that the Prime Minister wants?

[Matthew Hancock]

No; on the contrary, this is a consequence of allowing Ministers to express their views freely on whether they want to remain in or to leave, as many of them are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, apprenticeships increasingly cover the whole economy, including farming and agriculture. The number of apprenticeships in agriculture has increased by a quarter and I am pleased to say that we are working with farmers in our trailblazer reforms of apprenticeships to get them and the agriculture sector to write the rules on what training is needed to ensure that apprenticeships work better for them in future.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Bogus self-employment continues to spread through the construction industry, in part because the number of HMRC employer compliance inspections has halved in four years. Does the Secretary of State regret that?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Cryer and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are ensuring that due health and safety measures are protected, but that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach. That will reduce the impression among many businesses, especially small businesses, that they are liable to health and safety legislation in many cases when they are not. It will reduce that impression while ensuring that taking reasonable steps to abate health and safety difficulties remains a vital part of everybody’s responsibilities. Indeed, the new clause does not change the criminal procedures in relation to health and safety.

How do we propose to do this? Civil claims for personal injury can be brought by two routes: a breach of the common-law duty of care, in which case negligence has to be proved, or a breach of statutory duty, in which case the failure to meet the particular legal standard alleged to have been breached has to be proved. The new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to remove the right to bring civil claims for breach of a statutory duty contained in certain health and safety legislation.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

As I am sure the Minister knows, the 1974 Act is riddled with the phrase

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

Does that not give the protection against flimsy claims that he has been talking about?

[Matthew Hancock]

The 1974 Act does not give that protection, because a test of negligence is not required to proceed with a prosecution. In future, proof of negligence will be required to bring a case. It will be possible to bring a civil action for a breach of common law duty of care only on the basis that the employer has been negligent.