Covid-19 Vaccine Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that incredibly important question. Her region has done phenomenally well. I want to praise it because it has 91.8% of first doses for the over-80s in the STP. The NHS is already sharing data with local government. We need to make it more granular. We have brought into the deployment campaign Eleanor Kelly, the former chief executive of Southwark Council, so we are totally in line and integrated with local government, because they know exactly where those hard-to-reach groups are. The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point and that is a big focus for me.

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

The Government have done brilliantly well in securing more than 350 million jabs, which is enough, all being well, to vaccinate the at-risk population several times over. Given the UK’s relatively enlightened and co-operative approach to vaccine roll-out internationally—in sharp contrast to the narrow and vindictive nationalism of certain quarters of the European Union, which really ought to know better—what trigger points and timetable does my hon. Friend envisage for the disbursement of our inventory of surplus jabs, and the infrastructure necessary to deliver them to countries that are less advantaged than our own?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. My absolutely priority is to ensure that we have the inventory—as he quite rightly describes it—to allow us to offer the vaccine to all adults in the United Kingdom, and at the moment we are nowhere near that. Supply remains the limiting factor in our first target, which is to vaccinate groups 1 to 4 by mid-February, and then groups 5 to 9 as soon as we can after that, with phase 2, which we have been discussing today, after that. He is absolutely right that we have now ordered or optioned 407 million doses of vaccine. Once we are in a position to secure enough vaccine for the United Kingdom’s population, we will be able to look at where else we can help with our vaccine supply. We have also put £1.3 billion into a combination of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and COVAX. Of that £1.3 billion, approximately £480 million is going to COVAX, which is helping low and middle-income countries with their vaccination programmes as we speak.

Public Health

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have to see the impact of that vaccination on the reduction in the number of deaths, which I very much hope we will see at that point. That is why we will take an evidence-led move down through the tiers when—I hope—we have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths. We will need to see the protection in lived reality on the ground, but we will watch this like a hawk. My aim is to keep these restrictions in place for not a moment longer than they are necessary.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing, but the logic of his anticipating what is going to happen in two, three or four weeks’ time from the number of cases we are getting at the moment is that we can do the same in reverse. That is to say that when we have a sufficient number of people vaccinated, we can anticipate how many deaths will have been avoided in two, three or four weeks’ time. As this cuts both ways, that means that he will be able to make a decision on when we should end these restrictions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has just suggested.

[Matt Hancock]

The logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is right, and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground. This hope for the weeks ahead does not, however, take away from the serious and immediate threat posed now, and I wish to turn to what is in the regulations and the actions we need to take.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that one in 50 of the population has the disease, some with symptoms and some without. The latest figures show that we have 30,074 covid patients in UK hospitals and that the NHS is under significant pressure. Admissions are now higher than at any point in the pandemic, and so on Monday all four UK chief medical officers recommended that we move the country to covid-19 alert level 5. In practice, that means that they believe that without action there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed. It is for that reason that we have placed England into a national lockdown, alongside action taken in each of the devolved nations. Every single citizen needs to take steps to control this new variant, and this personal responsibility is important. To give the NHS a fighting chance to do its vital work of saving lives, it is on all of us to support it.

The regulations set out that everyone must stay at home save for a limited number of reasons permitted in law, including: essential shopping; work, if it cannot reasonably be done from home; education or childcare if eligible to attend; medical needs, including getting a covid test or getting vaccinated; exercise; escaping domestic abuse; and for support bubbles where people are eligible. These regulations are based on the existing tier 4 regulations, with some additional measures that reinforce the stay-at-home imperative.

These include: stopping the sale of alcohol through takeaway or click and collect services; and closing sport and leisure facilities, although allowing playgrounds and allotments to remain open. I know that these further restrictions are difficult, but, unfortunately, they are necessary, because we must minimise social interaction to get this virus back under control. These measures came into force first thing this morning under the emergency procedure and will remain in force subject to the approval of this House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Murrison]

I am really pleased by the generally positive way in which the hon. Gentleman is approaching this; it does him great credit. Can I perhaps help him out by making a suggestion? Every year, we accept a certain amount of deaths—tragic, sad deaths—from seasonal flu, up to 28,000 in recent years. Would it be reasonable to anticipate the number of deaths that are going to be caused by this virus and try to make a political judgment—for a political judgment is what it is—on what we feel is acceptable, and that will give us our criteria for deciding on when to lift this lockdown?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, like the former Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), but this is not just a simple calculation about the number of deaths that are prevented. The right hon. Gentleman has more clinical experience than I have, obviously, but we know that there are people who suffer long-term, debilitating conditions as a result of this virus, with reports of people developing psychosis, long-term breathing problems, and problems with the rhythm of their heart. It remains an extremely dangerous virus, regardless of whether people end up in hospital and on ventilation. But he is quite right: in the end, this will be a judgment for politicians and a judgment for this House. It is not a judgment for the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, although I would hope that our judgments, in the end, are guided by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.

--- 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.

Public Health

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

None of us went into politics to do this kind of thing —to put restrictions on people’s liberties and their livelihoods. With the exception of statutory instrument No. 1518, which at least reduces the period of self-isolation from 14 to 10 days, I loathe all these regulations, but I judge that this time, based on the evidence available to us right now, they are necessary. However, today’s good news means that we may see the end of these horrible measures sooner rather than later. In particular the news that one jab will bring 70% efficacy is good news indeed, because it means that we may see the back of this sooner than many of us thought possible. That is the good news.

We also need a degree of humility. No set of regulations can govern every vignette of human activity. I feel for those who had to draft the instruments and plough through them, trying to work out what may cause people to be at risk. Producing something that makes at least some sort of sense and that we can sell to our constituents is extremely difficult. We also need to understand that the virus is not orderly; it does not respect the parliamentary timetable, so anticipating what may be required in two, three or four days’ or indeed weeks’ time is almost impossible. Pointing out that statutory instrument No. 1646 has already been overtaken by events is therefore churlish. I am sorry that the Opposition do not cut us a little bit of slack when we are faced with a virus that does not respect any sort of timetable and that will change and change again.

It is difficult to explain to our constituents why, for example, they can go to a garden centre but cannot play golf. It is the duty of all colleagues to explain to the public, who are the unsung heroes in all of this and who, by and large, have kept the faith, why we have to have these restrictions and that all of us are trying to ensure that their liberties and livelihoods are returned to them at the earliest possible opportunity.

I have been troubled by one or two points about tiering. The tiers are based on five points, one of which is the ability of hospitals to cope. In the south-west this has been disappointing, because it has revealed that our capacity is not as robust as in other parts of the country. Partly that is because of staffing. I was disappointed over the summer that many of those who volunteered, either as recent retirees or as people who are not currently in patient-facing roles, were not trained. That has been, to some extent, a missed opportunity. I hope that as we go into the second wave, those skills that are not now in place will not be needed, otherwise there is scope for some embarrassment. I know, because I spoke to the Secretary of State, that he understands and empathises with some of these difficulties. I hope that Ministers will redouble their efforts to make sure that those volunteers are utilised.

I very much welcome the remarks of the Education Secretary earlier on. The contingency framework, which those who are less charitable might say creates tier 5 or tier 4-plus, is correct. If possible, I would like some resolution of the confusion over the scale of the schools that are involved. It seems to be rather more than we initially expected. I urge Ministers to do everything they can to keep schools open. It is vital, for every conceivable reason, that we keep schools open. I again emphasise the work of Ackland and others in Edinburgh, using the Imperial College model, which was published in the October edition of the BMJ. It suggests that closing schools may have a counterproductive effect in terms of lives saved from covid.

I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who said that we should “go hell for leather” in vaccinating people. That is clearly the way out of this, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made clear.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the officers and staff of the House who have worked so hard and colleagues a much happier new year?

Coronavirus Vaccine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are very happy to work with Devon County Council if it wants to come forward for that sort of model. We are constantly learning from around the country. The local-national partnerships often bring lessons, because people have chosen to do things slightly differently in a local area, and we can all learn from that. As for Devon coming into tier 1, Devon does have lower rates than many places, but it is not the lowest area in tier 2, as that honour belongs to my own county of Suffolk. There are elevated numbers of cases in some parts of Devon. What I urge everyone in Devon to do to get into tier 1 is to abide by the tier 2 rules and, more than that, to take personal responsibility to do all they can to reduce the spread of the virus.

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

I say a big well done to everybody involved with this triumph. I share the Secretary of State’s concern over vaccine hesitancy, and he is right to say that everyone in this House has a duty to try to dispel it. Does he agree that, had this House not taken the decision on 16 October to empower the nimble MHRA and leave regulation instead to the European Medicines Agency until 31 December, he would not be in this happy position today?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am very glad that we changed the law to allow the MHRA to make this authorisation on UK terms. This House voted unanimously to do that—well, we did not even have a vote as it went through without one. I am really glad that we were able to do that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement throughout this period. It has been a very, very long year as Health Secretary and I really appreciate his support.

Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is always diligent and measured in representing his constituents and businesses in the House. The deal that has been reached is both fair and proportionate and reflective of the fairness across other areas that are in tier 3, and it should be taken in the context of being coupled with the broader national programme. I would not characterise the approach being taken towards hospitality in the way that he did. I pay tribute to our hospitality industry in this country, which I think is what he was seeking to do, and as I say, the support package is there to support businesses across all sectors in this country.

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

Test and trace activity is rightly focused on areas of the country where there is relatively high transmission of the virus. To what extent will the Minister prioritise tier 3 areas over tier 1 areas in the protocols that the Department is drawing up for vaccination?

[Edward Argar]

The protocols for the distribution of any vaccine, when it becomes available, are being worked on intensively. My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am sure will have been heard by the Secretary of State.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Programme motion
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We keep the countries on the quarantine list under review—absolutely we do—and that is a weekly exercise that is led by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

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

There is now compelling evidence to suggest that vitamin D may be useful in reducing mortality and morbidity from this disease. It is safe, it is cheap, and it is already recommended by the Secretary of State’s Department for certain groups. Given our need to tackle this disease, and given that vitamin D requires three months to build up sufficiently to protect against respiratory infections, what advice will he give urgently on the use of this particular intervention?

[Matt Hancock]

We are increasing the communications to people about the benefits of vitamin D, and as I said to the House on Thursday last week, we are also instituting further research into the points that he, as an experienced and qualified medical professional, sets out so clearly.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I support these restrictions with a heavy heart. On balance, I will be supporting the Government this evening, but I want to make just a few quick points.

I would be very careful about subscribing to the Vallance/Whitty orthodoxy that informed these regulations, while not at all examining very carefully respectable bodies of medical opinion to the contrary. I would cite particularly the Heneghan/Sikora/Gupta line. It is important that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team address those things head-on and treat them with the respect that they deserve.

The Secretary of State has my utmost sympathy. When coming into office, he opened a box marked “public health” and found tools for doing all sorts of things, such as sorting out lifestyle problems—obesity, smoking, diet and all of that. I suspect that he found very few that were geared towards dealing with infectious diseases, particularly this infectious disease. He has done some good things to try to remedy that in a very short space of time. May I suggest to him, to sort out the shadow Secretary of State’s obsession with Serco, that he looks again at the Public Health Laboratory Service, which was in its second incarnation as the Health Protection Agency when it was abolished in 2012. He might find in such a thing the means to deal with infectious diseases of this sort in the future.

We need to be careful about groupthink, confirmation bias, a thin evidential basis and uncertainty masquerading as certainty. There is a huge margin of uncertainty with all this, and we all need to develop a level of humility in our attitudes towards dealing with this crisis. That is why I shall be supporting the Government this evening.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. In 2016, Operation Cygnus was very clear about what needed to happen. It was a question not of if there was going to be a pandemic; it was when. The Government failed to introduce all the recommendations from that exercise. I will not let them get away with this.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady can do what she likes. The Secretary of State is dealing with the situation that he found at the time. Developing the National Institute for Health Protection in short order from the disaster that was Public Health England was, I think, a very good effort, but there is much more to be done, as I know he appreciates.

May I sound a cautionary note for the Secretary of State? We have gone to great measures to close down schools, and I appreciate the need for that. That was informed, of course, by the Imperial College model, which was a flu model, in essence, and was inadequate for this particular virus. He will know—I hope he does—of the work published in September by the University of Edinburgh group under Ackland, which suggests that that certainly did suppress admissions to ITU. It certainly protected the NHS, but probably over time, unless we get a vaccine, it will cause more deaths directly from covid, quite apart from the incidentals for other diseases, the loss of liberty and livelihood. The Secretary of State needs to understand that and that there is an alternative view. If we do not get a vaccine, I fear, paradoxically, that we will see more deaths, not fewer, as a result of some of the interventions that we have put in place. Of course, Ackland was unsighted on this latest set, but the logic would suggest that those measures too may, over time, if we get a third and fourth wave, cause more trouble than they solve. It is a respectable piece of work and the Secretary of State needs to take account of it.

In all this, we simply do not know and we are learning all the time. We have to accept, I think, the expertise of those advising Ministers and that we have experts for a reason, but there is an alternative view. Unless we get a vaccine—goodness me, I hope we do—I think we may find that the cure is worse than the disease in terms of lives lost directly to covid, incidental lives lost to other common diseases—stroke, heart attack and particularly cancer—loss of liberty, loss of livelihood and the compete trashing of our economy. That is what is at stake. I do not envy the Secretary of State in his work.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. I know the Welsh borders extremely well. My hon. Friend is right to raise the need to work cross-border. We work as closely as we can, supporting the Welsh Government, for example, with their testing capacity and with test and trace. We are working on better data sharing between the two Governments, not least because of the importance for those who travel across the border.

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

I can get a routine blood test result on the same day with no problem, but a swab test typically takes days, not hours, severely limiting its usefulness as a public health tool, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) described. Does my right hon. Friend believe that directors of public health should have access to comprehensive datasets in good time if they are to identify the clusters that he envisages in his statement?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely—in real time, effectively.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am very reassured to hear that by the end of the week, care settings will all get PPE, which is not what the leader of my council was being told recently. I accept the Secretary of State’s reassurance: it is really good news. Can he further reassure me that the PPE, when it arrives, will be to the right specification, in particular FFP3 respirator masks and not simply paper masks, which are next to useless?

[Matt Hancock]

If there are specific concerns about the non-delivery of PPE to council settings, I want to know about them through the hotline that we have set up precisely to short-circuit such problems having to be brought to my attention on the Floor of the House. Let us fix them directly. On the second point, it has got to be the right stuff according to the clinical guidelines.

Coronavirus Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I want to bring to the attention of the House to the professional indemnity clauses. Where there is no existing professional indemnity agreement in place the Bill provides legal protection for the additional clinical responsibilities that healthcare staff may be required to take on as part of the coronavirus response. I do not want any clinician not to do anything that they can do because that they worry about indemnity and what might happen if it goes wrong. I want everybody in the NHS to do their very best to the top of their qualification, looking after people and keeping them safe.

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

I commend the Health Secretary on everything that he and his team are doing. To ensure that returning healthcare professionals can do so at the right time, when the disease peaks around Easter, we have to move at pace to put the indemnity that he has cited in place, to ensure that people are physically and mentally fit to do this work and, crucially, to ensure that they are skilled or reskilled to do what we are asking of them. Can he assure the House that those three things are being put in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are asking people, and are probably on the cusp of probably of forcing people, to radically adjust their behaviour in a way in which we have not been used to for more than 70 years. The last time that we asked people to radically adjust their behaviour was in the second world war. We have generations who are not used to this. We are a society who are used to going where we want, buying what we want, doing what we want and socialising when we want, and clearly, for a lot of people, it is not dawning on them that they will have to change the way they behave. That has huge knock-on effects for how public services will be organised, how the criminal justice system will have to work and how food distribution systems are going to work. It is right that we as parliamentarians continue to ask Government Ministers serious questions about that, but we also have to be aware that we have a responsibility to set an example to the country. We have to socially distance ourselves, so I really hope that the good offices of the Speaker, the Leader of the House and everyone who is involved in House business can quickly find a satisfactory set of procedures for us to continue having our discussions and asking Ministers questions, but not setting the example that we are unfortunately setting today. I am not making any personal criticism of any Member, because it is the situation we are in—we have to debate the Bill today—but we are going to have to hold the Government to account on the far-reaching, extensive powers that they are taking.

[Dr Murrison]

As always, I am listening with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Does he agree that part of the problem is that policy has to be based on behavioural science, but behavioural science is one of the most imprecise of sciences? The difficulty is that it is not like chemistry or physics. It means that we have to have a wider margin of error when designing policy, and what that means, in effect, is erring on the side of caution and safety, which I think is the burden of the direction that he is urging on Ministers. In a sense, it is about getting ahead of the curve by bringing in measures that we would all regret. However, if we are going to base policy on behavioural science—it being fairly inexact and difficult to predict, as we have seen over the weekend—we have to have that margin of error and caution, which I think he is recommending.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman has shrewdly interpreted the stance I am taking. Throughout all this, given the way in which the virus has spread so rapidly, its reproduction rate and the mortality rate, I have always urged the Government to take a precautionary principle approach to every decision that they make. I have been a bit sceptical about some of the behavioural modelling that has been used. Let me give him a quick example. Before the Government banned mass gatherings, we were told by Ministers and officials—I hope that no Minister takes this is a personal criticism; I certainly do not mean it in that way—that there is no point in banning a football match with 70,000 people in the stadium, because the person with the virus is not going to infect the other 70,000 people in the stadium and that if we stop them going to the stadium to watch the match, they would all go to the pub to watch it and infect more people there. I am sure he has heard that example.

I am very proud to represent Leicester City football club, and all the football fans—or a large proportion of them—go to the stadium before the match, and go to the stadium after the match—[Hon. Members: “Pub!”] I beg your pardon, they go to the pub. They go to the pub before the match, and they go after the match—[Interruption.] Some of them do avoid the stadium, actually. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) sees the point I am making. Some of these behavioural models do not always, it would seem, reflect how humans behave. Given that, Ministers and Governments should follow a precautionary principle at all times. That is why Labour is now urging Ministers to come forward with their plans to enforce compulsory social distancing. There are different models in different countries—we have France, Spain and Italy, New Zealand, where they did it overnight, Greece, and Germany, where, other than families, they have banned more than two people from meeting outside the house—but we think that the time has come for the United Kingdom to go down this line. We would encourage the Prime Minister to come forward with plans for how he thinks that this should apply to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

The Health Secretary is not in his place—understandably—but I want to start with a tribute to him. I think I am the only other person in this House who has sat behind his desk, and I can testify that even without a pandemic it takes years off your life. The Health Secretary has made himself exhaustively available. He has worked tirelessly, and no one could have done more or better to prepare the NHS for the crisis we now face. I also want to thank the shadow Secretary of State for the way that he has risen to the challenge of his role. All of us as parliamentarians are proud of the exchanges that we have had this afternoon and on many occasions.

Ordinarily, our role as MPs is to scrutinise every detail of legislation, to understand it and to try to improve it. There are many questions about this legislation, but we are in a national emergency and every day we delay could cost lives. So I support the Bill 100% and I encourage all colleagues to do the same. A week ago, the Government said we were four weeks behind Italy. That then changed to three weeks behind Italy, and today our mortality rates are just two weeks behind Italy. Our hospitals, especially in London, are filling up. We have had a critical incident at one, and others say they are running out of ICU beds. According to the papers, we have one nurse fighting for her life in an intensive care unit. One London hospital has seven doctors with the virus in just that one hospital. Yet still people are going to shops, parks, beaches and holiday homes as if nothing has changed. It may be too late to avoid following Italy, but to have any chance at all of doing so we must move now to lockdown rules that ban non-essential travel. It is time not just to ask people to do social distancing, but to enforce those social distancing rules—not next week, not this week, but right away. I support the call by the shadow Secretary of State to do that, and it is very important we do so as soon as we possibly can.

The Bill can help in two areas. The first is on protective equipment for staff. Last week, Sir Simon Stevens told the Health and Social Care Committee that there were sufficient national supplies of PPE, but there were distribution problems. Since then, I know that the Government have moved heaven and earth to try to resolve those. All hospitals have had deliveries, and I pay tribute to the Health Secretary and everyone in the Department for achieving that, but there is still a lot of concern on the frontline. The main reason for that is because on 6 March Public Health England downgraded the recommendations as to what PPE doctors should use. That appeared to be at odds with World Health Organisation recommendations. I understand that has now been clarified by Professor Keith Willett in a message sent out on Friday that does bring our advice more into line with WHO guidelines.

Most importantly, the advice now makes it clear that doctors should wear goggles if there is any risk of being sprayed, but obviously doctors would feel vastly more secure with more extensive protection, such as full-length gowns and FFP3 masks. Is not the solution just to order manufacturers to make more of that vital equipment—not just a little more, but massively more? If that needs legal powers, the Bill should give the Government those powers to require every factory that is able to devote itself to the production of that life-saving equipment to do so.

Numerous doctors have died across the world, including Dr Li Wenliang, the courageous Chinese doctor who first tried to blow the whistle on this virus. Twenty-three doctors have died in Italy. This weekend, France lost its first doctor. None of us wants that here. Given the total determination of the Health Secretary to protect our frontline staff, would he urgently look into whether we need to manufacture more of the highest-grade equipment?

[Dr Murrison]

Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at my being told just now that masks and PPE that were meant to be delivered to my authority, Wiltshire, tomorrow, will now be delivered on 9 April? I am not sure what the situation is in Surrey, but that seems extraordinary. Does he also agree that it has to be the right PPE—it cannot simply be a paper face mask from B&Q, as we heard earlier? It needs to be appropriate, and people need to know how it works. When they wear it, they are likely to have to work harder, because wearing PPE is not easy or straightforward.

[Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend knows, as a clinician— and I am concerned—that in our desire to get PPE out we have not understood the vital role that local authorities play in this. Residents in care homes are extremely vulnerable, and their carers need that equipment, so I very much support his concern about that.

The second area where the Bill needs to do more is testing. A week ago today our strategy changed from mitigation to suppression. I strongly support that change in strategy. Suppression strategies are being followed very successfully in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and China, which appear to have turned back the virus. Here, all our public focus has been on social distancing, but testing and contact tracing to break the chain of transmission are every bit as important, if not more important. Those countries that have turned back the virus rigorously track and test every case and every suspected case, then identify every single person with whom a covid-19 patient has been in contact to take them out of circulation. As a result, those countries have avoided the dramatic measures and some of the economic damage that we have seen in Europe.

South Korea has avoided national lockdown, despite having a worse outbreak than us; Taiwan introduced temperature screening in malls and office buildings, but kept shops and restaurants open—it has had just two deaths. In Singapore, restaurants remain open and schools are reopening, although working from home is discouraged. Again, in Singapore, there have been just two deaths. Ten days ago in this country, we went in the opposite direction, and stopped testing in the community. How can we possibly suppress the virus if we do not know where it is? So far, we have had 281 deaths, tragically. According to the modellers, there is about one death per 1,000 cases, which means that we have just under 300,000 cases in this country. According to the same modellers, the number of cases is doubling every five days, which means that at the end of next week we will have about 1 million cases or more in this country. Unless we radically change direction, we will not know where those 1 million cases are.

The Prime Minister talked about expanding testing from 5,000 to 10,000 to 25,000, which is welcome. He even talked about 250,000 tests a day, which would be more than anywhere in the world—I welcome that ambition, but ambition is not the same as a national plan, and we have not seen a national plan on testing.