NHS Staff Pay

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the heroic efforts of NHS staff at hospitals and primary care and community trusts across the country, including the Princess Alexandra Hospital. As I have said, we have submitted to the pay review body our envelope for funding—the 1% that the Government say they can afford—and we will look at its recommendations when they come back. I should also say that there was a commitment in the spending review to ensure that lower-paid staff would get at least a £250 pay rise, and that applies to those in the NHS as well.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

We heard this weekend about nurses in particular wishing to leave the profession, so does the Minister have any figures on departures in recent years? Does she agree that the elephant in the room is not pay across the board but low pay in the NHS? Even a 10% pay rise on not very much is not very much. Do we not really need a grown-up conversation about what we pay those who do some of the least glamorous jobs across health and social care day in, day out, every single year?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should be thinking about the whole workforce. As the Minister with oversight of social care, I have many conversations with that sector about the pay levels for people working in social care. I want to see us appropriately rewarding and recognising staff across our whole health and social care system, not only in pay terms but in the wider package of support that people get, and making sure that each day at work is a good day. That is something that I will continue to work on in this role.

Covid-19 Update

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, all international passengers are required to comply with the rules. It is the first time I have heard of that particular issue. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out either why the system is done in that way or that it has been rectified, if that is what is needed.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The road map contains a chapter on building resilience to future pandemics, which I think we must be honest and say will not leave us alone for another 100 years. Therefore, with respect to the global network of zoonotic research hubs, as the Prime Minister wisely set out in his five-point plan at the UN last September, can we ensure that they build on the work of experienced virus hunters already out there such as the Global Health Network who have years of experience searching for unseen viruses that leap from animals to humans?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. The proposed work, as set out by the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly, which we are working on with our presidency of the G7, aims precisely to build on and strengthen the existing work that is under way. However, clearly we need to ensure that all the future risks, whether they are from zoonotic diseases or are due to environmental changes that lead to risks to human health, are taken into account and we need to have an early warning system that is as effective as possible.

Covid-19

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered covid-19.

When I last spoke in this Chamber in a general covid debate, on 12 January, we faced a very grave situation. There was a very real risk of our hospitals being overwhelmed, the number of people tragically dying from covid-19 each day was in four figures, and our vaccine roll-out was just getting off the ground. As I stand here today, we have made huge progress, and while there is no room for complacency, thankfully we now face a very different picture.

That we find ourselves in this changed position is largely down to three factors. The first is our amazing NHS and social care workforce. The pressure they have experienced has been phenomenal. Their response to that pressure has been humbling to all of us: the teamwork, the resilience, the dedication. It has been truly inspiring. They have our admiration and our thanks, and we must always reiterate that, but they must also continue to have our unwavering support in the months ahead as we build back better after this pandemic.



The second factor is, of course, our national lockdown. On 12 January, the average number of cases per day was 44,302; more than 30,000 people were in hospital with covid-19; and, on average, more than 1,000 people were dying of the disease each day. Today, we see an average of just over 11,000 cases each day; just under 20,000 people in hospitals with covid; and a heartening and welcome decline in the number of deaths.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

One of the great differences between the start of this nightmare and where we are now is on personal protective equipment for health and care staff, which was a big issue at the start. There were a lot of stories over the weekend about the procurement of PPE. I know from my time as a Minister in the Department that sometimes government is not elegant, but surely what we did was to make sure that we did not run out of PPE. We should congratulate many of the officials in the Department on making sure that that did not happen, as history records it did not. For my constituents who are concerned about the process that went on, will the Minister reassure me that everything was above where it should be?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister in the Department for some time and rightly highlights the situation that we faced at the height of the first wave of the pandemic. It is testament to the phenomenal efforts to procure PPE of the officials in my Department, in the Paymaster General’s Department and others that we did not run out of PPE in this country. Indeed, credit for that should also go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who ensured that throughout he put the provision of PPE and people first, even when, as we have seen, that may have led to challenges and to process not being entirely adhered to in respect of the timings for the publication of contract details. He and I have the greatest respect not only for the recent judgment, which we will consider carefully, but for the importance of transparency. I believe that my right hon. Friend did the right thing: he did everything he could to ensure that his No. 1 priority was to get that PPE procured and to the frontline to protect those who were protecting all of us and helping to save lives.

As on so many occasions over the past year, in recent weeks the British people have once again made huge sacrifices to comply with the necessary restrictions. It has been incredibly hard for individuals and businesses up and down the country, but in the figures that I have set out, we can see the impact that those sacrifices have made in helping to suppress the spread of this virus.

Despite the progress, over the past week an average of 449 people still lost their lives each day—449 families and friends who have lost loved ones. It is still far, far too many. It reminds us that, even now, as we map a brighter course forward, we must never lose sight of the threat posed by this virus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I was more content with today’s statement than I feared I might be. As I said to the Prime Minister earlier, the return of schools is a hallelujah moment for me and for many parents; the Government have done the right thing there. Primary for me in the Prime Minister’s statement was the line:

“There is no credible route to a zero-covid Britain or indeed a zero-covid world.”

This is what I do not get. We hear people say all the time, “It must be the last covid-19 lockdown. We don’t want to go back.” Well, of course we do not want to go back. Nobody wants to do that, but what am I missing here? In its analysis of covid deaths, the plan, on page 14, talks about 88% of cohorts 1 to 4. Then it mentions a further 11%, which means that 99% of deaths are in cohorts 1 to 9, so how could we go back? We have heard today about the efficacy of the vaccines, which is awesome. Compared with the flu vaccine, it is incredibly good. We have heard about the impact on transmissibility, which seems to be good as well. When the Paymaster General sums up, can she please explain what I am missing here?

On the 99% figure, how can I justify to my constituents what it says on page 39 of today’s road map, which is that there will be no legal limits on social contact, but that will happen no earlier than 21 June? We will have vaccinated cohorts 1 to 9, the 99%, by the middle of April, so by the end of April that will have taken effect and they will be protected. Look, I am open to the argument. I think I am a reasonable fellow, but surely the onus is on the Government to justify their restrictions—those in law anyway—after the end of April.

Finally, I agree with Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, when he said that covid will be with us for ever. The truth, therefore, is that so will infections and so will hospitalisations, and that, sadly, it will take people before their time—it may take me. We have to accept that the human condition includes mortality. That is really hard. When I was Public Health Minister, I found it hard that 22,000 people lost their lives to influenza. It was really hard when my own father passed away from pancreatic cancer three days after the last general election, but it was true. Let us be driven by the data, absolutely, let us be cautious, yes, and let us produce a release that is irreversible, but let us produce one that is irreversible because we are being honest with the British public, not because we are chasing a world without covid, which, as the Prime Minister rightly said, can never be.

Future of Health and Care

Steve Brine Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. The figures out today demonstrate the scale of the challenge when it comes to cancer treatment. Of course the pandemic has had a challenging impact on cancer treatment. We are supporting cancer alliances to improve outcomes as much as possible, and to work through the backlog that has inevitably built up because of the pandemic. Cancer alliances are a very important part of the future of the delivery of care. In many cases, they will be bigger geographically than an ICS. For them and for other specialist treatments, of course some cases will have to be at a larger scale than an ICS. Alongside putting these reforms in place, we are absolutely determined to do everything we can to ensure that people get the treatment for cancer that they need as soon as possible.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]]

I very much welcome the White Paper. I urge my right hon. Friend to “think workforce” at every stage, but to ensure that prevention is the golden thread that runs through all future legislation and plans. Given that the last 12 months has very much laid bare the impact of inequalities on our public health outcomes, will we be truly bold and return to our prevention Green Paper, which the Secretary of State knows well, when it comes to facing the obesity crisis, smoking prevalence, alcoholism, diabetes and stroke prevention, to name just a few?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. There are measures in this White Paper that precisely pick up the work of the prevention Green Paper that my hon. Friend did so much to shape when he was in the Department with me. In fact, many of the proposals in the White Paper are built from conversations that he and I shared. I want to put on the record my gratitude for the work that he did in shaping this agenda, because ultimately a population health agenda is an agenda about the prevention of ill health. Of course we must—and we will—treat those who become ill, but it is far better for everybody to support people to take a shared responsibility, including their own personal responsibility to stay healthy in the first place. The population health agenda that will be at the heart of the integrated care systems is ultimately a preventive agenda, and one that I am very glad to hear that he supports so wholeheartedly.

Covid-19 Update

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is the Minister for the vaccine roll-out, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who is leading those efforts. It is obviously an incredibly important subject, because it matters to us all.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said earlier that the virus treats us all the same, which is of course quite right. Sadly, it does not go easy on those who do not take up the offer of a vaccine, so can I ask my right hon. Friend what his thinking will be if, despite all the excellent work going on to support the vaccine hesitant, and there is lots of it, we have fellow citizens not protected? Will he confirm that such a personal decision cannot impact on the ultimate release of our society and our economy?

[Matt Hancock]

We are not proposing to mandate vaccination, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend sets out. Anyway, vaccine take-up has been really very high—much higher than expected—which is terrific. In fact, in the latest international surveys that I have seen, the UK has the highest enthusiasm for taking the vaccine—up from about fifth highest a couple of months ago. Our attitude, tone and communications throughout have been purposefully entirely positive about why the vaccine is good for people and for their communities, and how people like them are taking the vaccine. I praise the Government Communication Service, NHS England and local councils, which have worked so hard to drive vaccine take-up as high as it has been.

Covid-19 Update

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I take all that as a compliment. The £500 payment is incredibly important in supporting people on low incomes, as is the huge roll-out of test and trace, with more than 90% of contacts now identified and contacted by NHS Test and Trace, which is doing a magnificent job. Of course, the roll-out of the vaccine is going rapidly, and this weekend, one in 60 of all adults in the country got a jab, which is testament to that. We are always looking to improve and learn lessons wherever we can, but I am glad that things are making the progress they are.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I echo what the Secretary of State said about HIV. Binge-watching “It’s a Sin” is five hours well spent on a reminder of how close we are to that magic zero transmission. The Government’s acceptance last week that the release of our society, rightly starting with our schools, should move in lockstep with the success of the vaccine roll-out, was welcome. Will the Secretary of State assure parents that we will follow an increasing number of countries around Europe, and in the UK, and stick to that as the vulnerable groups, and those liable to overwhelm the NHS, are protected?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course.

Covid-19

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

We are back in lockdown again and 2021 is looking a lot like 2020. The difference, and the reason I supported it last week, is that we finally have the ultimate release from lockdown in the form of the vaccine.

I warmly welcome the vaccine delivery plan published yesterday. It seems that we are off to a good start, with 2.3 million people having been vaccinated. That is great. There is no doubt that we will see problems. Supply, to quote the vaccines Minister, is going to be “lumpy”. That is creating difficulties. We have begun well in my constituency, but it is hugely frustrating to see the postponing today of a raft of appointments for this week because of problems of supply. We cannot duck the fact that that has hurt public confidence, and I ask the Minister responding today to set out for the House exactly, because I keep being asked this, where the supply falls down at an early stage. Is it the manufacturing? Is it the settling process? What exactly is it? I am told that the deliveries for next week look much better. We have a lot of AstraZeneca vaccine coming into the county, so I hope the Minister can help us to correct this problem, to get those appointments made and carried out as soon as possible.

It remains my belief that these horrible restrictions on our lives cannot be in place a day longer than required —and, to be clear, they are currently required. Alongside the published vaccine delivery plan and daily figures on how we are getting covid done, we must give the public some hope. As the Secretary of State said last night at the press conference, over 88% of those likely to get seriously unwell, and sadly die, reside within the top four priority vaccine groups. Given that the only metric that really counts, and the reason public support for the lockdown is so high, is the desire to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, logic would dictate that once that threat has gone away, we can start to lift restrictions.

We need clear heads if we are going to do this. Covid is not a conspiracy and it is not a hoax. We were right to take it seriously last spring, and since, but we are equally right to demand a plan that dismantles the most draconian of laws on our constituents in lockstep with the vaccination programme. When we have vaccinated the highest-risk groups, what will we do? When we have completed phase one by vaccinating all those with above-average risk by late March, what will we then do? Put another way, how does success in vaccine delivery translate into a return to normal? What is the exit strategy? The public have put up with an awful lot. The vast majority of them have done exactly what we asked. They need hope, they need to see a path out of this, and then we can attempt to make sure that 2021 really is not the new 2020.

Covid-19 Vaccination Roll-out

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. Standing here in lockdown again, with the Chancellor telling the House this afternoon that it is going to get worse before it gets better, I have to say that 2021 is starting to look a lot like 2020.

I could support lockdown 3 last week, whereas I could not support the lockdown in November, because we finally have the ultimate release from the deadly cycle of lockdown and release in the form of the covid vaccine. I warmly welcome the “UK COVID-19 vaccines delivery plan”, published this afternoon. We need to study it, and we will, but the figures suggest we have made a strong start. As the Health Secretary said in Downing Street this afternoon, 2.6 million jabs have been given to 2.3 million people, according to the very latest figures.

I welcome the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is responsible for many of the jabs. He has taken his seat at exactly the right time, because I agree with the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), that we should vaccinate 24/7. I think there will be an appetite for that. The idea of key workers being vaccinated overnight and perhaps those in the older categories during the day if they do not want it during the night is absolutely fine. Let us at least give them the opportunity. It might be cold and it might be dark, but I will make the tea.

There is no question but that we will see problems, and the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that. Supply is going to be lumpy in the next few days, and that is creating problems. I cannot hide from that. We are off to a flier in my constituency of Winchester, way ahead of many areas. In fact, one primary care network in my district has already delivered more jabs than the whole of France. None the less, it is very frustrating that just today a raft of appointments made for this week in my constituency has had to be postponed because of supply problems. We cannot doubt the fact that this hits public confidence. I thank the Minister for Vaccines for his engagement with me and the primary care network involved this weekend, and plead with him to help us get this corrected and get the deliveries into this part of Hampshire, so that these appointments can be made good and carried out as soon as possible.

Looking at the delivery plan, such as I have been able to this afternoon, I agree about the publishing of data. Daily national data is so important—transparency is our best weapon—but daily regional data will also be really important. I want to see areas with enough supply almost competing to better each other. If Lancashire is doing better than Yorkshire, I have a funny feeling that Yorkshire will want to do better than Lancashire. That is the sort of national effort that we need to see right now. We need to jab for victory, get covid done—whatever three-word slogan the Minister chooses. Let’s do it.

As the Minister knows, it is my strong belief that these awful restrictions on our lives cannot be in place for a day longer than they are required, so alongside the published vaccine delivery plan and the daily figures on how we are getting this done, we have to give the public some hope. In the past hour or so, the Secretary of State has said at the No. 10 press conference that just over 88% of those likely to get seriously unwell and sadly die from covid reside within the top four priority vaccine groups. My view is that given that the only metric that really counts, and the reason why public support for lockdown is so high, is the desire to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, logic would dictate that once that threat has gone away, we can start to lift the restrictions. We need clear heads if we want to do that. Covid-19 is not a conspiracy or a hoax. We were right to take it seriously last spring, and we are right to take it seriously now, but we are equally right to demand a plan that dismantles the most draconian laws this Parliament has brought in in centuries, and to do so in lockstep with the vaccination programme that we have.

We know the plan commits the Government to vaccinate the top four groups by 15 February, which is great. As Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, grimly reminds us, we expect between 7,000 and 10,000 deaths from flu each year in an average year. The most cautious reading would suggest that the vaccination programme should take covid deaths well below this level, so when we have vaccinated the highest-risk groups, what will we do? When we have completed phase 1 by vaccinating all those with above-average risk in late March, what will we do then? These are important questions, and ones that I will keep asking. We do not lock society down for common colds or seasonal flu; we cannot do the same for the little-understood condition that is long covid, no matter how awful it can be. The many other economic, health and societal impacts of this pandemic are already serious enough, so we need a clear road map out of this that the public can believe in, or this year is going to make the last look tame by comparison.

The petition is right to look at the next phase of the vaccination strategy, but there are so many competing groups asking to be put in the front of that next phase. Supermarket checkout staff interact with huge numbers of people from multiple households, more than any teacher would during any working day. What about police officers? Just this afternoon, I had an email from a constituent telling me about the work that her son is doing in London. Maybe they should be top of the next queue. Pharmacists are going to play a very central role—I declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for even mentioning pharmacists. They are brilliant, and as a former pharmacy Minister, I can say they are going to play a brilliant role in the roll-out of this. Maybe they should be top of the next phase’s queue.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about prioritisation, teachers range from early years to further and higher education, and have widespread responsibilities and contacts, including intimate care with young children? Think of a secondary schoolteacher, carrying their bags around to each and every classroom in which they have to teach under certain systems that have been put in place. I cannot think of another group of people who have that much contact with other humans, and I cannot stress that enough.

[Steve Brine]

I do not disagree. The hon. Lady probably thinks that I am working up to disagreeing with the premise of the petition. I am not. The point that I am making, before I agree with the premise, is that there are so many competing groups and, while supply is lumpy—supply is limited at the moment—we have to prioritise, which is why phase 1 has to be right.

My overriding message is this. Let us get on with it. Let us have this national programme. Let us implement the vaccine delivery plan. And then we will put all these groups in. With regard to teachers, I absolutely agree: if reopening and keeping open schools is the Government’s priority, and the Westminster Government say that it is, surely it is good sense, let alone good politics, to vaccinate educators. I say “educators” because of course it is not just teachers, but support workers and all the other people who make schools happen. That must make sense, but I will just say that if we are going to have schools reopened at the end of half-term, we have almost, now, lost the opportunity to do that, because we have to give people the jab and then allow three weeks for it to take effect. That now cannot happen before the end of half-term, so there will be a gap, however we cut this particular cake.

Let me finish by talking about early years, which people would expect me to do as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on childcare and early education. The JCVI obviously identified its groups, and some early years workers will be covered by the groups involving the clinically extremely vulnerable and

“all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality”.

It is not the case that no teachers and no early years workers will be covered in phase 1; of course some will be. With regard to phase 2, the JCVI states:

“Vaccination of those at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their occupation could…be a priority in the next phase.”

Its suggested list includes teachers, and I believe that early years workers should be a high priority, based on two key factors.

First, unlike schools, the early years sector is currently open to all children, meaning that staff are coming into contact with similar numbers of children as they were prior to the latest national lockdown. Secondly, it is of course impossible to socially distance from babies and young children. They need close personal care, such as changing nappies, treating cuts and just giving them a cuddle when they bump themselves. All early years settings are currently open to all children, and of course that is vital in providing continuity of care and early education to the youngest children, but with regard to supporting those settings and keeping them open and keeping those staff safe, I think that they have a strong case. Why are they treated differently? That was what the hon. Member for Leeds North West said. Well, early years workers are a fairly mild bunch. They do not have a powerful trade union often speaking up for them. They have only me and a few other people in the House of Commons. And that is possibly the reason why.

This petition makes a lot of sense. I think that, for every person who has signed the petition, that comes from a good place. I think that it comes from a will to see schools, educators and young people treated fairly and kept safe from this awful pandemic. Anything that we can do to roll out the vaccine delivery plan, which the excellent Minister, now in his place, will ensure happens, will move us out of this nightmare, and then maybe I can stop being a grinch about 2021.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

The debate finishes at 7.30 pm. Five colleagues wish to speak, and I want to call all of them, so I suggest that everyone speak for about five minutes. That will give the Minister and his opposite number time to respond to the debate.

Public Health

Steve Brine Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, we have been not only watching for mutations but, indeed, testing for mutations throughout, and it is partly because the UK has the biggest genomic testing capability of any country in the world that we have been able to pick this one up. There may be new mutations in other countries that do not have this scale of genomic testing, and just under 50% of all the sequenced genomes of covid-19 that are deposited with the World Health Organisation are deposited by the UK because of this capability.

That leads to a challenge, which is that it is the countries that have the genomic testing capability that spot the new variant and report it. There are countries that may have variations that are not known about and are not discovered in this way and cannot be reported, but that is the nature of the pandemic. My strong view is that we should be transparent and clear with our international friends when we find a new variant that is difficult to deal with.

When I have previously come to ask for the House’s support for national restrictions, we had to take it on trust that there would be an exit, because it was before a vaccine had been approved. Today I come to the House seeking approval of these regulations knowing, from the huge pressure on the NHS right now, that this action is necessary today, but also with the certain knowledge that we have a way out.

Before turning to the detail of the regulations, I want to set out the plan for how we get out of them, because that is critical. This country was the first in the world to deploy not one but two vaccines, and more than 1.3 million people have been vaccinated already, including a quarter of the over-80s.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I do not like it one bit, but I will support the Health Secretary tonight. The reason I will do it, and I suspect the reason why there is such high public support for these measures, is the position in which the NHS finds itself and the level 5 ruling. If we have, by the middle of February, vaccinated the top four groups, who are the ones likely to overwhelm the NHS, does the logic not follow that at that point we will be able to lift the restrictions on our constituents’ lives?

[Matt Hancock]

I will come on precisely to my hon. Friend’s point, because that is a critical question that I know people are rightly asking: if we are going to have these restrictions, how do we get out of them and, frankly, how do we get out of all the restrictions that we have had to put in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The supply of vaccines can take place on all seven days of the week, but, in a regular way, we do it on six days of the week and then, on the seventh day, people can either rest or deliver further vaccine if that is what is necessary. As a result of this delivery schedule, there has been no point at which any area has been short of vaccine. We have a challenge, which is to increase the amount of vaccine available. The current rate-limiting factor on the vaccine roll-out is the supply of approved, tested, safe vaccine, and we are working with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer to increase that supply as fast as possible. They are doing a brilliant job, but that is the current rate-limiting step. As that supply increases, we will need more people to give vaccinations. We will need to get pharmacists involved in the vaccination. I very much hope to get my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), a former doctor, and others involved in vaccinations. We will need more people, but the current rate-limiting factor is the supply of vaccines.

That is not to say that the companies are not supplying on the schedule that was agreed; they are, and they are doing their bit, but we do need to increase that supply and then the NHS will increase its delivery. I hope to make that point crystal clear, because Public Health England work to get the vaccine out is not a rate-limiting factor, the current discussion with pharmacists is not a rate-limiting factor, and the fill and finish is not a rate-limiting factor. What is a rate-limiting factor is the amount of the actual juice—the actual vaccine—that is available, which is not manufactured like a chemical. It is a biological product. I do not know whether you bake your own bread, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I sometimes do and it is a bit like the creation and the growth of yeast. That is probably the best way to think of it. It is a complicated and difficult task and that is the rate-limiting factor. I pay tribute to those who are engaged in the manufacturing process of this critical product.

[Steve Brine]

My right hon. Friend knows that I am obsessed with this point. He mentioned the agreed schedule of delivery. Will he consider publishing that, so that we can see what the agreed schedule is?

[Matt Hancock]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the agreed schedule of delivery will enable us to offer vaccinations to everyone in the top four priority groups by the middle of February. That is why the Prime Minister was able to commit us to that schedule.

I want to talk about the support that has been outlined. We are providing an additional £4.6 billion of support to businesses, including those in retail, hospitality and leisure that have been forced to close their doors once again, on top of the £280 billion plan for jobs, which includes the extension of the furlough scheme until April.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I think that that is a very good recommendation. May I extend an invitation to the hon. Gentleman to return to Leicester to watch our great football team, when we are allowed and are out of lockdown? Perhaps I will take him around and show him some of the great inter-faith work that we do in Leicester as well.

The lockdown will have a huge impact on the wellbeing of our children, so a plan to get our children back safely to school is a priority. There are thousands of children out of school in overcrowded, cramped accommodation, unable to access learning properly from home. There are other children at risk of abuse and violence. Members may know that I have spoken of my own experiences growing up in a home with a parent who had a problem with alcohol. Many children face the prospect of being locked in their home with a parent who abuses drink or drugs, so I urge Ministers to work with and fund children’s advocacy and support groups such as the National Association for Children of Alcoholics, with which I have worked closely, that will do so much throughout this lockdown.

Today, I agree with the Secretary of State. We do, unfortunately, have to restrict freedoms further to safeguard freedoms for the future and save lives. As he said, the tragic reality is that the virus is out of control. To be blunt, there is no freedom for our constituents if they are in the graveyard. There is little freedom either for those who suffer the enduring, debilitating effects of long covid. Yesterday, almost 55,000 cases were reported in England—one in 50, as the Secretary of State said, have the virus. The numbers in hospital are higher than in April, with over 1,800 in intensive care. Yesterday, there were over 3,300 hospitalisations—a record—and admissions are going up in every region.

This is a national emergency, and a national lockdown is necessary. Indeed, we should have locked down sooner. We are voting this lockdown through on Twelfth night, yet in the run-up to Christmas the alarm bells should have been ringing. The Secretary of State came to the House on 14 December to report a new strain, now known as the B117 strain. He told the House:

“Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variants.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 23.]

The Prime Minister learned of the rapid spread of the new variant on 18 December. The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group met that day and concluded that the new strain added at least 0.4 to the R. On 21 December, the chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, said that the new strain was “everywhere” and cases would rise after the “inevitable mixing” at Christmas. He said:

“The lesson…you have to learn about this virus…is that it’s important to get ahead of it in terms of actions”.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies met on 22 December, the following day, and concluded:

“It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November…would be sufficient to maintain R below 1 in the presence of the new variant.”

Here we are, two weeks later, with half a million infections and 33,000 hospitalisations since 22 December. This is a national tragedy. Why does the Prime Minister, with all the scientific expertise at his disposal, all the power to make a difference, always seem to be the last to grasp what needs to happen? He has not been short of data—he has been short of judgment, and yet again we are all paying the price.

As the Secretary of State has said, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Vaccination is how ultimately we are released from these restrictions. I pay tribute to everyone involved in helping to distribute and administer 1.3 million vaccine doses so far. This a great achievement, but we need to go further and faster.  The Prime Minister has promised that almost 14 million people will be offered the vaccine by mid-Feb. That depends on about 2 million doses a week, on average. Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have assured us in recent days that that is doable, based on orders, but, in the past, Ministers told us that they had agreements for 30 million AstraZeneca doses by September 2020 and 10 million Pfizer doses by the end of 2020, so I think that people just want to understand the figures and want clarity. How many of the ordered doses have been manufactured, how many of the ordered doses have been delivered to the NHS, and how many batches are awaiting clearance through the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency clearing processes? Two million a week would be fantastic, but it should not be the limit of our ambitions. We should be aiming to scale up to 3 million, to 5 million, to 6 million jabs a week over the coming months. If we can vaccinate 29.6 million people, deaths and hospitalisations will be reduced by 99%. That is what we should be aiming at now.

[Steve Brine]

Obviously the Opposition will support this tonight, but, further to the exchanges that a number of Government Members had with the Secretary of State, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House at what point he and the Leader of the Opposition will be calling for our constituents to be released from the restrictions? Please do not say, “When it becomes obvious it is going to happen.”

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. Of course, as we vaccinate more, mortality rates will improve more and we will be able to save people’s lives, but there will be others who remain unvaccinated and exposed to the virus, and will possibly develop debilitating symptoms of long covid as a result of that exposure. I do believe that we can begin to ease restrictions once we increase the proportions of those who are vaccinated, but we will not be able to go back to normal yet, because the virus will still be circulating. Even though they may not end up in hospital and on ventilation, many who have contracted this virus have remained incredibly ill as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I certainly will be supporting these regulations tonight, with a heavy heart, but nevertheless, they are clearly required at this particular juncture. I doubt that there is anybody in this country who loathes and detests more the restrictions on liberties and livelihoods that these regulations reiterate than the Prime Minister. I am confident that he would not be recommending them to the House unless they were absolutely necessary in his judgment. However, I think it is important that the House is provided with more granularity on numbers and it needs to have a better idea of what constitutes an exit strategy and the trigger points that would allow for that strategy.

Jabs offered are not the same as jabs put in arms, which is what is crucial. We need to have published—I suggest daily, since Ministers must have this information—what is being contracted for, the factory-gate delivery against that contract, the jabs in arms and the jabs that are awaiting deployment because of the three-week downtime caused by batch and sterility testing. We need to know how many jabs have been applied in the past 24 hours by priority group.

[Steve Brine]

I will add one to that, if I may: jabs given per area. In Hampshire, we are in a good place—I expect to hear so tonight in our briefing call, because we can scale up when the supply is there—but I know, from talking to colleagues across the House, that it is not the same everywhere. We need to know where the weaknesses are—or, rather, the vaccine Minister does, so that he may address that.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and that data clearly has to be available, because it is gathered locally. That would be very useful, particularly for constituency Members of Parliament.

The thing that worries me most is the exit strategy. The Secretary of State, perfectly reasonably, said that we have a sort of exit strategy in that we now have a vaccine, which we clearly did not have at the beginning of last year. However, we need to decide—this is a political decision, ultimately—what constitutes the criteria for coming out of this lockdown. Generally, it has been suggested, that will happen when we have vaccinated everyone up to group 4 in the JCVI’s list of priorities—that is perfectly reasonable—so when everyone over the age of 70 has been jabbed, as opposed to everyone over the age of 70 being offered a jab. The two, as I said, are quite different.

We need to challenge and push back on that, however, because notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), long covid, awful though it is for those who are afflicted by it, does not constitute a reason for continued lockdown and the penalty that this country is paying societally, medically and economically for what we are about to vote on this evening. That does not stack up; what stacks up is the awful grisly calculus of lives saved.

We have a benchmark, which is the number of lives that, tragically, we are compelled to accept every year are lost to seasonal flu deaths. That gives a reasonable benchmark of what, politically, in society we might be capable of accepting and, because we can project how many deaths will happen—Ministers are keen to do that in recommending to the House, correctly, that we vote in support this evening—they must have an idea, given the number of people who have been vaccinated in key groups, how many deaths there will be in the ensuing month, or two months or whatever one might choose.

I will just push back, very finally, on one other issue: the people in group 4. It is reasonable, perhaps, for those who can be expected to remain safe through shielding to be considered part of group 5, because that will enable many of people over 65 to be vaccinated, which will enable us potentially to come out of this awful lockdown just a little bit sooner and to meet the challenging targets that have been set by the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House staff for ensuring that we were able to be recalled today for the second time in a week to debate these important matters. It is important that this House is at the centre of this debate.

I recognise that the new variant, the significant growth in cases and the resulting pressure on the NHS means that we are in a different position than the one that we faced in November. For that reason, I will not be opposing these regulations, as I did when the Government brought them forward in November. None the less, I do agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, which is that running the regulations all the way to the end of March is too far a distance in the future. It seems that the obvious checkpoint for the Government to come back to this House to seek the authority to proceed is the middle of February, when the Prime Minister set a very clear goal to have vaccinated the four first groups that the JCVI set out and when the Government will have to make a decision about whether schools return after the February half-term. It seems to me that that would be the point when the Government should bring that information to the House, set out their proposals hopefully to relax restrictions and to get children back to school, and seek the House’s authority to do so. I suggest that Ministers go away and reflect on that and come back to us next week when the House returns after the recess. I think that that would be welcomed by colleagues.

[Steve Brine]

On the point about schools, I just wonder what my right hon. Friend’s view is on the vaccination of teachers. If keeping schools open is such a priority for the Government, as it is and as it should be, then surely however difficult it is to move that group up the vaccination list, it has to be something that we consider. To open up schools after half-term, it has to be something that we do pretty much pronto.

[Mr Harper]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and it has been made by others, but I have to say that, for me—obviously, I am not a clinical expert—the JCVI has got it right. No matter how important schools are, the priority must be focused on reducing the number of people who are going to die and the pressure on the health service. Those are the right choices to make. The risk to many teachers—those who are much younger and those who do not have underlying health conditions—is very low. If they are in the high-risk groups with, for example, a serious underlying health condition, they will already be on the list to be vaccinated earlier according to what has been set out. That is the right approach. As soon as we move away from that, every group of frontline workers potentially exposed to the virus will make an argument that they should be higher up the list, and that would not be a sensible way for the Government to proceed, so they should stick to the process set out by the JCVI.

I have two final points. On the vaccination schedule, maximum transparency, as the Prime Minister said, is welcome. In reporting daily vaccination numbers—by daily I assume that we mean seven days a week, not just five—I urge the Government to publish as much information as possible, including by region and by cohort, so that we can see how this is going and which regions of the country are going well. Potentially, we could have some positive competition where people are trying to do better. My own region in Gloucestershire is making good progress, and I would be pleased to see that information in the public domain. The agreed delivery schedule for suppliers ought to be published, as that would give people confidence and we could all focus, putting it in terms that the Prime Minister would use, on getting vaccination done. That should be the nation’s No. 1 goal in the next few weeks.

Finally—and I know that this has been discussed outside the House—vaccinating priority groups does not just reduce the risk of death by a huge amount, by about 80%, but reduces hospitalisations by almost 60%, which reduces the pressure on the national health service. Both those factors mean that once we have vaccinated the first four groups we can be bold about looking forward to relaxing restrictions, and I hope that the Government can come forward at the earliest possible opportunity.

Covid-19 Update

Steve Brine Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady’s question is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done more than almost any Finance Minister in the world to support people—whether in employment or self-employed—with some of the most generous schemes that have ever been put together. We appreciate that it is not possible to save every job, but we have done the most that we possibly can. I will make sure that someone from the Treasury gets back to the hon. Lady with a clear answer.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows that the vaccine roll-out programme in Hampshire is in a very, very strong position. What he will not know is that, by the close of play today, just over 40,000 people in the county will have had their first dose, which is impressive work by Nigel Waterson, who is leading that—sorry, I meant Dr Nigel Watson; Nigel Waterson is a former colleague. The only thing holding us back, I am told, is supplies, so does today’s decision mean that the county’s endeavour can match its ambition? How many doses exactly will be in the country by the turn of the year?

[Matt Hancock]

I want to thank Nigel Watson and all his colleagues who have delivered this fantastic effort across Hampshire. It is true that the current rate-limiting factor on the roll-out of the vaccine is the supply of the approved vaccine. Not only do we need to have it manufactured and in the country, but each batch needs to be checked, because it has to be in pristine condition. The worst thing we could do is inject someone with something that we think is vaccine, but does not work because it has not been stored properly. That takes time.

We have 530,000 doses of the AstraZeneca jab ready to go, and they will be deployed from Monday. In addition, we have over 3 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine that are ready, because we needed to hold one dose back. Once we move to the 12-week window for dosage—for the Pfizer vaccine, too—which has been recommended today by the regulator and by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we will be able to roll those out. That will happen through January, rather than immediately. The end result of all that is that we can significantly accelerate the roll-out of the vaccine programme.