Covid-19: Forecasting and Modelling

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to follow all my hon. Friends, who I note have usually been in a different Lobby from me on most coronavirus measures. I am sure the Minister will be grateful to have somebody speaking from the Government Benches who has been supporting the Government on coronavirus throughout.

However, I too have issues with modelling, which is why I chose to speak in today’s debate. I have more sympathy with modelling, and I will be offering some sort of partial defence and explanation of it in my remarks, because before I was an MP, I was a modeller myself—a software engineer. I wrote in Visual Basic.NET, which is nice and simple: engineers can see what the code does. I worked for bet365, and I used to write models that worked out the chance of somebody winning a tennis match, a team winning a baseball game, or whatever. I had some advantages that Neil Ferguson and these models do not have, in that there are many tennis matches, and I could repeat the model again and again and calibrate it. If I got my model wrong, there were people out there who would tell me that it was wrong by beating me and winning money off me, so my models got better and better.

The problem we have with covid is that we cannot repeat that exercise—there is no counterfactual. We have heard the phrase “marking your own homework”.

[Bob Seely]

I am deeply impressed by all this stuff— I do not quite understand what my hon. Friends are talking about, but it sounds fantastic. However, there is a counterfactual. The counterfactual is when people say, “We are not going to follow the lockdown,” and hey presto! we do not get 3,000 or 5,000 deaths a day and all the people who predicted that are proved wrong. There is a counterfactual called real life.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I accept it, but the problem is that none of these models model changes in human behaviour. We discussed this issue during our debate on the measures that we brought in before Christmas, and as I said at the time, the reality was that people were not going to the pub, the supermarket or anything because they were changing their behaviour in the face of the virus. If the models do not take that into account, they cannot know where the peak will be. The models show what would happen if nobody changed their behaviour at all, but of course, the reality is that people do. We have not got good enough at modelling that, because we do not know exactly how people change their behaviour.

As a tangential point, behavioural science has had a really bad pandemic. We were told that people would not stand for lockdowns, but—to the chagrin, I am sure, of many of my hon. Friends—people did stand for them. Looking at the polling, they were incredibly popular: they were incredibly damaging, as colleagues have said, but people were prepared to live with lockdowns for longer than the scientists thought they would. There was initially an attempt to time the lockdown, because people would not last for that long. In reality, that is not what happened, so behavioural science also has a lot to answer for as a result of the pandemic.

I think that models still have value. My biggest concern arising from the experience of the pandemic is the bad parameters that have gone into those models at times—I will refer to two particular examples.

The time when I was nearest to following my colleagues into the Lobby was the extension to freedom day in June, because on that day we had a session of the Science and Technology Committee, which has taken excellent evidence throughout; it has a session on reproducibility in science tomorrow, where we will also look at this sort of thing. On the day of that vote, I was questioning Susan Hopkins and we were considering vaccine effectiveness. Public Health England had just produced figures showing that the actual effectiveness against hospitalisation of the Pfizer vaccine was 96%, yet the model that we were being asked to rely on for the vote that day said it was 89%. Now, 89 to 96 may not sound like a huge difference, but it is the difference between 4% of people going to hospital and 11%, which is three times higher. It was ludicrous that that data was available on that day but had not yet been plugged into the models. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), that was one of the reasons that I said in the Chamber that the case was getting weaker and weaker, and that if the Government tried to push it back any further, I would join my colleagues in the Lobby on the next occasion.

The other case is with omicron. Just before Christmas, we had these models that basically assumed that omicron was as severe as delta. We already had some evidence from South Africa that it was not, and since then we have discovered that it was even better than we thought. That feeds into what my hon. Friend was saying about the total number of people who are susceptible. The fact that omicron has peaked early is not because people have changed their behaviour but because the susceptible population was not as big as we thought: more people had been exposed, more people have had asymptomatic disease. There are all those sorts of problems there.

More philosophically, my models when I worked for a bookmaker were about probabilities. Too often we focus on a single line and too often that has been the so-called worst-case scenario. Well, the worst-case scenario is very black indeed at all times, but Governments cannot work purely on a worst-case scenario; they have to come up with a reasonable percentile to work with, whether it is 95% or 90%. Obviously, it must be tempered by how bad the scenario would be for the country. The precautionary principle is important and we should take measures to protect against scenarios that have only a 5% chance of happening or indeed a 2% chance, but we should do that only if the insurance price that we pay––the premium for doing that––is worth paying. That comes down to the fact that not many economic models have been plugged in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has repeatedly said in the Chamber and elsewhere throughout.

Any Government must try to predict the course of a pandemic to make sensible plans and I believe that the best tool for that is still modelling, but we must learn the lessons of this pandemic. We must learn from shortcomings such as the failure to understand human behaviour properly, the failure to make code open source so that other people can interrogate a model and change the parameters, and the failure to enter the right parameters and update the model at the moment politicians are being asked to vote on it. For all those reasons, I am grateful for today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Opposition spokespeople and the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for today’s debate.

Public Health

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is of course important that we keep measures under review, but, for the reasons I gave earlier, I will continue to present this set of measures to the House. They strike the right balance and are a proportionate response.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to learn that Dr Angelique Coetzee gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this morning, and, rather contrary to her piece in the Daily Mail, she actually endorsed what the Government are doing. She said that the boosters were definitely the absolute priority, but she also referred to masks and avoiding mixing. When asked specifically about the covid pass proposals, she said that they sounded like a proportionate response to the requirements of the situation.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that with the House. I think it is important to hear that support from South African experts too.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me start with a few words about the big picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put this very well. We know that covid is going to be with us forever, and we know that we are going to have variants forever. The chief scientific adviser has told us that, and I agree with him. There are many people who think that we will just have to wait a bit and it will all be over, but that is not happening. We have to be realistic about what we are facing, and according to Jeremy Farrar, we are facing this challenge as probably the best protected country in the world through vaccination.

This was effectively the first big test for the Government: how do we deal with a variant of concern in a very well vaccinated population? I am disappointed that we have quickly gone into panic and emergency mode, with late Sunday night broadcasts—not in the House of Commons where questions can be asked—scaring people witless. For example, they have been told that two doses give them no protection, which is not true. Two doses provide weakened protection from omicron against infection, but they still provide good protection against serious disease. I am concerned that many people out there who have had two doses and who are perhaps vulnerable now feel that they have no protection. That is simply not correct. If this is the first test, I do not think we are doing very well.

[Aaron Bell]

The data from South Africa that we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee showed that we still have good protection against severe disease from two doses of Pfizer, but it has gone down from 93% to 70% for hospitalisation. That is four times the risk of hospitalisation.

[Mr Harper]

I have seen that, and I look forward to the information from the UK. The point I have been making in my constant repetition about the House sitting next week or the week after or being recalled—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) also mentioned this—is that we are learning new information every day, and when we get that information, we might need to make different decisions. The House needs to be involved in those decisions; they should not simply be made by Ministers by decree. I repeat that point, and I do not understand why Ministers will not give us that assurance. It would build a lot of trust and good will among colleagues, and I do not understand why they will not give that commitment.

These decisions have significant economic and social impacts, as well as impacts on the NHS’s ability to deliver non-covid treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has already pointed out that the NHS is going to scrap a whole load of elective surgeries and consultations with GPs in order to get boosters delivered. That might be the right decision, but I do not think that a proper balancing is taking place. Goodness knows how long it is going to take us to recover from the creation of this new backlog over the coming months. If the Government’s fears, as set out by the Secretary of State, are confirmed in any way, what is the exit strategy? What approach are they going to take to ensure that we do not face on-and-off seasonal restrictions forever? That is a serious question, and it has been raised by other colleagues. We need an economy that functions, people need to build lives that can function and the NHS needs to be able to function and deliver all the other healthcare we require.

Let me turn briefly to plan B. I am happy to support the measures on self-isolation. I simply note that, two weeks ago when we were asked to vote to restrict them, I voted against that. Two weeks later, the Government have agreed that I was right to do so, because they are effectively revoking those earlier measures. I will leave that thought with colleagues for when they decide whether they wish to listen to the advice of Ministers or others.

On vaccine passports, the Government’s plan B makes it very clear that Ministers’ preference is for vaccine-only passports. The only reason why tests have been incorporated is to buy or secure the support of the Opposition. That is the only reason. Ministers’ preference in writing is for vaccine-only certificates, so we know what they would like to do if they could get away with it.

The Secretary of State also made some commitments about not supporting mandatory vaccination for the entire population. The only reason that needed to be said is that, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister put on the table the whole concept of mandatory vaccination and talked about having a “national conversation” about it. All I say is that, if Ministers wish to build trust and good will, they need to be careful about what they say. They should not fling these very troubling concepts around without thinking about them. Words have consequences, both in terms of what happens in the real world and of the trust that needs to be built with Members of Parliament and the public.

What is proposed for vaccine passports is very limited, but that was the case everywhere they were introduced around the world. Everywhere they have been introduced, they have been extended. In Wales, for example, where Labour is in power, they have been extended in terms of the venues to which they apply, so anyone who thinks that Ministers will stick to what is currently on the Order Paper are, I am afraid, kidding themselves.

The final thing I say to colleagues is this: the vote on vaccine passports is not just about the regulations on the Order Paper; it signals how we wish to treat this House, how we wish to be treated on behalf of our constituents, and the direction of travel and the approach. If my colleagues wish to send the Government a clear signal that they need to rethink their approach, then, certainly on vaccine passports, they should vote against them. Send the Government a clear message that we can do better. There is a better way, and we should send that message today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). This has been a good debate and a necessary debate. Strong views have been expressed on all sides, and I think those reflect the views that a lot of us have heard from the country and in our inboxes. I believe in a proportionate response to the potential threat of a public health emergency, and that the precautionary principle applies, so I will support the Government today. Given what I have heard about the transmissibility of omicron, I think these measures will be for only a limited period of time, one way or the other, because it is very transmissible and we do not yet know quite how severe it is.

The response that the Government take has to be balanced with the needs of the economy, as many others have said, and we must be particularly mindful of the effect on the hospitality industry, particularly at this time of year. But it is not these measures that are affecting the hospitality industry. In fact, some of these measures will support the hospitality industry by giving people confidence. It is the virus that is affecting the hospitality industry. Sometimes I get the sense that some colleagues, and certainly some people who write to me, are arguing with the virus, not with the Government. I think it is common cause across the House that we all do not like the virus, but unfortunately the virus does not care about that and it will keep on doubling.

That brings us to the data. I am grateful to all the witnesses we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee, ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), but clearly we do not have enough data yet, particularly UK data, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. On case fatality rates, we heard that omicron is perhaps 29% milder than the original strain—that is from the South African data—and that in terms of length of stay in hospital, omicron stays are perhaps half the length of regular stays. Unfortunately, those are both linear variables. The R0 rate, on which omicron is truly outcompeting the other variants, is an exponential variable. That means that until it runs out of targets, it is going to keep doubling. We heard that there were 200,000 infections yesterday; that will be 400,000 in two or three days, and possibly 800,000 in a week’s time. We must not fool ourselves that we know how we can balance that exponential growth with the two linear measures we have found out about. We have to take a precautionary but balanced approach in the meantime.

I have sympathy—I really do—with the slippery slope argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and those who say this is the thin end of the wedge. I share the view of many colleagues that the House must have its say over the next two weeks if we are to take further steps along that slope or to a thicker part of the wedge. I would not vote for the thickest part of the wedge—I would never vote for mandatory vaccination of the general public, and I welcome the assurances we have heard from the Dispatch Box today—but that is not the question before us. We should all vote for or against these measures based on their content and our own personal belief in them.

On the so-called vaccine passports, I do not believe that they are anything of the sort. With lateral flow tests and recent experience of covid as alternatives, I do not think they should be described as vaccine passports; they should be described as covid passes. I welcome the assurance from the Dispatch Box that lateral flow tests will remain part of that in the future, and I will hold the Government to that.

Finally, on the point about rights and responsibilities of citizens that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made so eloquently, there are 4 million people who have chosen not to be vaccinated so far. Some of them may be disorganised, but there are undoubtedly many out there who have chosen not to be vaccinated. I say to all of them: “I will stand up for your freedom and for your right not to be vaccinated, but you cannot imagine that there can be no consequences to that choice once that starts impacting the freedoms and rights of others.” I therefore think that some of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned may have to be considered in the future if we get severe exponential growth of omicron.

In my last 10 seconds, I commend the Government for what they have done on boosters, and I urge everyone to go out and get their booster as soon as possible. That is the way out of this.

Covid-19 Update

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

For those who are bed-bound, home-bound or vulnerable for other reasons and who cannot make it to vaccination centres, vaccinations are primarily carried out by GPs. I do not have the numbers of how many have been done, but recently to encourage more people to be vaccinated more quickly we changed the GP payment system, which seems to have helped as well.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The Opposition often call for more restrictions, but it was the relaxation of restrictions this summer, which the Government took under scientific advice, that has put Britain in a good position prior to the emergence of this variant. While I welcome the statement and the proportionate precautionary measures the Secretary of State has taken today, will he assure me and the House that this is a temporary measure, and that when we get more information and have bought more time, we will get new measures to react to that information?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I am very happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that this is all about buying a bit of time that our scientists need to assess this variant properly and to determine what it really is and whether we should really be worried about it or not. He is also right to point out that we took measures in the summer removing almost all domestic rules and controls and that they turned out to be absolutely the right measures. Many of my counterparts in Europe now believe they should have taken a similar route, but I remember that all those measures were opposed by the Labour party.

Automated External Defibrillators: Public Access

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his private Member’s Bill. It may be the case that we do not have time for it on the day it is scheduled for, but I hope the Government will look carefully at the Bill.

The debate is well timed for me, because I am due to visit a school in my constituency tomorrow that installed a defibrillator only last Friday. However, I am afraid the background to that installation is tragic. Ravensmead Primary School in Bignall End in my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency has had a very sad loss in recent weeks. A teaching assistant suffered a heart attack at school and later passed away. Sam Benson was a much-loved member of the Ravensmead community, a mum of three children, and a teaching assistant who had been involved with the school for 20 years, initially as a volunteer to help children with reading and later as a member of staff. In the words of her headteacher, Melanie Goodall,

“Sam was a fabulous teaching assistant. She was fun and loved life. She was always bright and colourful. She used to work in the school office and was the first face that many parents saw here. She would have Michael Buble on a loop in the office.”

The circumstances of Sam’s death are not only tragic, but illustrate the problems with access to defibrillators. When she collapsed one morning in September, several colleagues raced a hundred yards up the road to a local pub, which thankfully did have a defibrillator, while several other colleagues commenced CPR immediately. However, it took them several minutes to get hold of the equipment as they needed to phone for the access code. Fellow teaching assistant, Heather Evans, was one of the members of staff trying to access the defibrillator at The Swan pub after Sam’s collapse. She told our local paper, the Stoke Sentinel, that,

“Running up the road, it was like running up Everest”.

By the time they got back to the school, the paramedics were already there. Sam was taken to hospital, and sadly died five days later.

I am enormously pleased to hear how quickly the paramedics were able to attend the scene, which is commendable given the pressure that the ambulance service is experiencing. However, as has been raised already, it is widely known that every minute counts when responding to cardiac arrests. The chance of successful defibrillation decreases by 23% for each minute that passes, according to a 2003 study. Therefore, if a defibrillator had been more readily available and used a couple of minutes sooner, who knows what difference it might have made? We will never know, but Sam’s chance of survival may have been higher. She was lucky that CPR was started almost immediately, which would have given her a much better chance than those who collapse alone.

In Sam’s honour, her husband Neville Benson, friends and members of the school community have been raising money for a defibrillator at the school and have raised over £4,000 in Sam’s memory. Tesco Express in Audley has actually donated a device, which has been installed, so that money will be used to help other schools in the area have access to the same device. Neville has also been in touch with me to talk about his desire that these devices be made mandatory in all schools—indeed, I spoke to him this morning. I know that new and refurbished state schools are required to have defibrillators. I saw the answer from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) to a written question on 10 September that the Government are looking at what more they can do, and she referred to what the previous Secretary of State for Education has done on the issue.

When Neville spoke to me this morning, he also made the sensible point that while it should not be a cost-benefit analysis, there is a financial benefit as well as the health benefit because quicker defibrillation reduces the chances of long-term disability, which could save society an awful lot of money for a relatively low cost in the short term. I would like to briefly mention the amazing work of the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, which aims to provide heart screening for a minimum of 200 young people per year. I was introduced to the charity by David Hughes, my constituent in the same parish, who raises money for the charity in honour of his son, Daniel Hughes, who died suddenly at the age of 28 in 2015. In memory of Daniel, Dave has been working to raise awareness and reduce the frequency of young sudden cardiac death. He said:

“We will never know if heart screening would have saved our precious son’s life but we never want another family to go through what we went through. There are no words to describe the emptiness and heartache we feel everyday; all we can do is work hard to ensure that Dan’s legacy lives on for years to come and that he continues to make a difference to people’s lives now as he did when he was with us.”

Dave has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds since Dan’s death. I have been out to support him on some of those things. If the Minister could take this message back to the Department, I know Dave would be very grateful.

Defibrillators can mean the difference between life and death, as we know only too well. Of the 30,000 out-of- hospital cardiac arrests across the United Kingdom each year, the overall survival rate is a shocking one in 10. It is estimated that publicly accessible defibrillators are used in fewer than 5% of those incidents. That is a very sad statistic, but a sadder one still is that, according to research conducted by the Resuscitation Council, less than half of bystanders in the UK would intervene when they witness someone collapse. That statistic is substantially lower than figures for other regions and countries that have comparable demographics. The willingness rate is 73% in Norway, 66% in Seattle and 60% in north Holland, and their survival rates are over 20%, so that is something we also need to tackle. Norway has been teaching CPR in schools for many years, and that bystander CPR has got its survival rates as high as 25%, compared with less than 10% in the UK. I am very pleased to see that, from September 2020, we did add CPR to the national curriculum in secondary schools.

Finally—this is another point that people have raised—most of us will remember the Euro 2020 footage this year, when Danish footballer Christian Eriksen collapsed. Of course, his chances of survival were greatly increased from the start because of the urgent medical assistance that arrived immediately. CPR and a defibrillator were applied during those crucial first few minutes. Those scenes were deeply distressing to witness for everyone watching in the stadium or from home, but thankfully he had a good outcome. He is now doing so well that he is working towards returning to playing football. We should be giving that same best chance of survival to everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

First, I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. A consistent theme is coming through about having all the data in place; and The Circuit network is going a long way towards that.

I am very keen to be aware of the Welsh perspective and what is happening in Wales. There might be lessons there for us all to learn about how to do what is needed. I thank the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) for giving us that perspective.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) referred to access to AEDs and training. Again, that is a central theme that consistently comes up, with each and every person. He gave the example of Denmark. He also referred to the fact that in some cases AEDs can be delivered to rural areas by drone. I am not quite sure about the science of how that is done, but the point is that it is happening somewhere, and if it is happening somewhere and is successful, it might be the way to address this issue in some rural areas.

I was so sorry to hear about the lady whose case was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). The necessary timescale very clearly was not there. As a result, there will now be an AED in place. It was not there when the lady needed it, and all of us, including the Minister, have said that we wish to convey our sincere sympathies to the family.

[Aaron Bell]

May I thank the hon. Member and all other hon. Members who have expressed their sympathy? When I see Mr Benson, I will ensure that they are passed on to him, and when I speak to the headteacher tomorrow, I will ensure that they are passed on to the school as well.

[Jim Shannon]

There is a united consensus of sympathy in relation to that case.

I thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for his support for this cause. He gave us a salient reminder of the 300 children who die each year from cardiac arrest. Sometimes, when we hear the figure of 30,000 for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, we do not focus on all the people that includes.

I think we are all really interested in what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) has done in his constituency. We would be very keen to find out more about how that has happened, because there is obviously something that we could learn from there.

I am very impressed by the fact that the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is so learned in this sector. I know him as a friend, so I am not surprised at his knowledge on this subject matter. I know that he is also a very athletic person. He gave the example of the sixth-form student who is alive today and pursuing a career because of an AED that was in the right place, at the right time. The hon. Gentleman and I feature in many debates together; indeed, I cannot think of any debate on a health issue that we have missed. I thank him. I am certainly keen to look at that, and will discuss how to bring it forward in a positive way with the Minister and the hon. Member for Sedgefield, if that is possible.

I want to sincerely thank the Minister. She referred to the fact that some 12 young people die from cardiac arrest every week. It is shocking that we can lose so much young life—people who could have done so much and had their futures ahead of them. The hon. Lady will know of young Oliver King. He comes to my mind on many occasions. I never knew the young boy, but I knew his daddy—that is very real.

The Minister referred to discussions with stakeholders, the NHS and first responders, who do excellent work in my constituency. She also referred to teaching and training in schools. That is all part of the joint approach that we need, alongside St John Ambulance and CPR training. The Minister also referred to Bills that will require an AED to be in place in all those buildings and that AEDs will be mandated in any new build. I am very grateful for that positive response from the Minister.

However, my private Member’s Bill aims to do one thing, if I can achieve it: it would mandate that all buildings, not just new buildings, must have AEDs. I know that the Minister agrees with that. We need a consensus across all Departments that have responsibility in this area. AEDs are available in lots of buildings already—in schools, Government buildings, many leisure centres, football clubs and so on. However, the Bill aims to achieve one thing: that AEDs are mandated in all buildings, and that those who are responsible for them will know that. The signage, training and all of the other things to which the Minister and others have referred are great points and are very important, but they illustrate that the Bill is so important. I hope that on Second Reading, on 10 December, the Government will see that the Bill is a win-win; there is no cost, but everyone gains. Those nine out of 10 victims of sudden cardiac arrest who are lost every year can be saved. The Bill is a lifesaver. I encourage the Government and all those involved to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered public access to Automatic External Defibrillators.

Covid-19 Update

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not know the details of that particular situation, but I reassure him and the House that, whether for our boosters offer or the evergreen offer of vaccination, the country—the vaccines taskforce—has more than enough supply.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, the roll-out of boosters to 40 to 49-year-olds and the fact that people will be able to book a booster five months after their jab rather than six months. I declare my interest on both counts and thank the Secretary of State very much. Does he agree that given that the booster increases protection against symptomatic covid up to 90%, it is in my and everybody else’s interest to get it as soon as possible, to protect ourselves, our loved ones and the NHS?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: the facts and figures now speak for themselves. He referred to the latest data from the UK Health Security Agency today that shows there is more than 90% protection when someone has had their booster dose; as he says, that is protection not just for that individual but for their loved ones.

Oral Answers to Questions

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

Hang on, sir! I was about to say that I would be delighted to visit what is now the city of Southend. My only deep sadness is that our friend will not be there to meet me when I do so. He and his family are very much in our thoughts.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the (a) short-term and (b) long-term impact on public health of the ongoing odorous emissions from Walley’s Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for his tenacity on the issue of Walley’s Quarry and for continuing to stand up for his constituents. As part of the multi-agency response, the UK Health Security Agency provides expertise and support to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On 4 May, the Secretary of State took appropriate action, writing to the Environment Agency, which regulates the landfill operation, and urging it to use its regulatory and enforcement powers over Walley’s Quarry Ltd to resolve the problems at the site. It has been strongly recommended that the Environment Agency takes appropriate measures as early as possible to reduce offsite odours from the landfill site and to reduce the concentrations in local areas to levels below the health-based guidance values used to assess long-term exposure.

[Aaron Bell]

I welcome the Minister to her place. This ongoing public health emergency in Newcastle-under-Lyme has been a real trial for my constituents. Does she agree that in future the Environment Agency will need to take into account the effects on public health—both physical and mental health—of odorous emissions and the gases that escape from landfills, so that no other town has to go through what we have in the last year?

[Maggie Throup]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency takes the situation very seriously and is working with the operators of the site to address it as quickly and effectively as possible. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that the Environment Agency has re-evaluated its regulatory approach following the outcome of the judicial review, and on 14 October published its plan to reduce the levels of hydrogen sulphide emissions at the site.

Covid-19 Update

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I think it is reasonable to assume that at some point in the future, perhaps as early as next year, there may be what I referred to as bi-variant or perhaps even multi-variant vaccines. The flu vaccine is a multi-variant vaccine, for example. In terms of availability and getting approval from regulators, we are not there yet, but I believe that is the general direction of travel. When we do get there, I think it will be much easier to live with covid-19.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

My constituents have very much enjoyed getting back to normal in these last few weeks, so I welcome what the Secretary of State said, in particular on plan A. Does he agree that, while we must not be complacent, we must also not be overcautious? To that end, what assessment has he made of the data in the past few weeks and whether it utterly vindicates the Government’s decision to proceed on 19 July, a decision they took in the teeth of some opposition?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Many people, including many in this House, especially those on the Opposition Benches, told us that the decision we made to go ahead with step 4 and remove all those restrictions was the wrong one. Events have clearly shown that we made the right decision. The status of the pandemic at the moment is that cases are steady. We of course have to remain vigilant, but my hon. Friend makes a very fair point.

Coronavirus

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

As ever, it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). On his interesting point about SAGE, we could do with full disclosure from the Government about all the facts that they have available to them on covid. In the Science and Technology Committee this morning, we were told that vaccinations have saved 14,000 lives. I have no doubt that that is an accurate figure, but there are many figures that have not been given. As we said the last time we debated this issue, only one side of the equation is given. Let me ask this question: how many lives have been lost in order to save capacity in the NHS? When it comes to looking at people untested and untreated for cancer, heart disease and other diseases, we will find that the figures are of a similar, if not greater, magnitude than the number of people who have died from covid.

We should have transparency and open declarations of what really happened with the 26,000 deaths in care homes, where untested people were sent from hospital. We should have disclosure about all those people who were triaged by age and who were not treated, and all those people in care homes who were not allowed into hospitals because they were not taking people from care homes. There is a great deal more information that we require in order to make a rational decision about whether the lockdown should continue. I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that what we have here is the Government asking for emergency powers when there is no longer an emergency.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; we were in the Science and Technology Committee this morning. Does he share my disquiet at the fact that the vaccine effectiveness numbers that Public Health England has published—96% effectiveness against hospitalisation from two doses of Pfizer, and 92% from Oxford-AstraZeneca—are much higher than the numbers that have been plugged into the models used by Imperial and the London School of Hygiene and Medical to underpin the data that the Government are relying on?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree completely that those sorts of numbers—the real numbers, as opposed to model numbers—are the numbers that should have been plugged into that model. They would have given a different scenario. The hon. Gentleman makes my point: in order to come to rational decisions about what risks we should take as a country and what risks individuals should take, we should have all the information up to date and available. The Government have refused on a number of occasions to give out that information. They have run a campaign to scare people into accepting their decisions.

To go back to the comments of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who was talking about elections to SAGE, at least the behavioural psychologists who advise the Government have made a public apology. They say that they have undermined their professional credibility by joining the campaign of fear. I wish that the Government would not only put out more information, but apologise for frightening people. They should not frighten the electorate, and they certainly should not frighten people in this Chamber into taking people’s liberties away.

One of the things that has annoyed me most in the last 15 months is when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care say, “We instruct you”—meaning the population—“to do various things,” when there is nothing in the legislation that would give the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister the ability to instruct individuals. We live in a liberal democracy in which we pass laws that are enforced by the police, and then the courts make a decision if there is a prosecution, not one in which the Secretary of State acts like some kind of uniformed Minister of the Interior.

I will vote against the regulations today. We need a more direct debate on the issue and we need what Members have searched for—a straightforward comparison, with real statistics, of what risks everybody faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I have supported the Government throughout on coronavirus measures, but today we have come very close to the point, for me personally, at which the line has been breached. I have listened to some very persuasive speeches from colleagues who have come to that point today, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). I myself am sticking with the Government on this occasion for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) gave— the same reasons, in fact, that the Health Secretary gave me in the Lobby earlier—including the need to get those second jabs into people who are still at risk of hospitalisation.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) recently said, we must take the two-week review seriously, because there is evidence even today that we are starting to bend the curve of exponential growth and that the R rate is starting to fall on cases in England. We know there is a 10-day lag to hospitalisations, but we have also seen the hospitalisation percentage falling. It was 8% of cases turning into hospitalisations in the autumn, and it is down to 4% now. If that continues to drop, the case that the Government are making will get weaker and weaker.

I would like briefly to pay tribute to the Health Secretary not only for all his work on this and his assiduousness in coming to the House, but for helping me with a major public health issue in Newcastle-under-Lyme—a landfill—which he has been incredibly engaged with. I think the Health Secretary has done a fantastic job throughout this pandemic, and I welcome what he said today. He himself obviously has his reservations, but this is the right decision for the country at this time.

As I serve on the Procedure Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—its Chair, who spoke earlier—let me say very briefly that I will be supporting the other motion as well. As we have said in the Committee, I think it is absolutely fundamental that we align what we do in this House with what we are asked in the country to do.

Covid-19 Update

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but my first duty is to protect people here in this country, while at the same time making sure that people get access around the world, as we have done, for instance, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab—half a billion jabs have been done around the world. That is my order of priorities; I am very, very clear about it. We will help the rest of the world to get vaccinated, but we also need to look out for and vaccinate the British population. As for the first half of the hon. Lady’s statement, it was completely wrong.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme have done everything we have asked of them during this pandemic. They have stayed at home and protected the NHS, and then they went out and got vaccinated in huge numbers, so any sense that these restrictions are to protect those who chose not to get vaccinated will be seen by them and me as deeply unfair. Will the Secretary of State set out what assessment he or his scientific advisers have made of the extent to which these restrictions are required to protect those who chose not to get protected?

[Matt Hancock]

This change is emphatically not for the purpose of protecting those who have chosen not to get vaccinated. It is emphatically to ensure that we have the time to offer the jab—both first jabs to all adults and second jabs for those who have had their first. To go through the data on that, currently, 93% of over-40s have had their first jab, but there are still 4.5 million who have not yet had the second jab. We can get through the majority of those over the next four weeks. Then, of course, we have been able to bring forward the date by which we will have offered a first jab to everybody. This is about the ability of the people who want to come forward to get jabbed to do so, and that is what we will achieve by 19 July to that degree. I hope that we end up with an uptake of almost 100% by the end of this; the uptake figures have been absolutely astonishing, so we will keep offering, we will keep encouraging people to come forward and we will keep trying to make the system and the vaccines as accessible as possible, but the thing that is in the direct control of the Government—subject to supply, of course—is the offering of the jab, and that is the commitment that we have made by 19 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The definition of “outdoors” used in these regulations is the one set out by the Labour Government in the ban on indoor smoking.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The foul gases and odour coming from Walley’s Quarry landfill in my constituency are no longer just an environmental catastrophe; they are also a major public health concern. A local GP surgery in Silverdale reports exacerbation of asthma, hay fever-like symptoms, nausea, insomnia and depression. The Environment Agency figures that have been passed to Public Health England show that World Health Organisation guidelines for hydrogen sulphide have been exceeded on the 24-hour public health limits. What is going on is not fair on my constituents. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the public health implications, both physical and mental, of the major environmental incident going on in my constituency, and will he meet me and the Environment Secretary to discuss the matter?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for raising this vital question of local public health in the House, and I am absolutely determined that the authorities—both the local authority, with its responsibilities, and the national authorities, including Public Health England—play their role in tackling this problem.