Covid-19

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). I agree that the work of the vaccine taskforce has been superb. It is one of the reasons why we are first in a lot of queues; we are ahead of EU states, for example. I thank all the careworkers and NHS staff on the Isle of Wight for the wonderful work they do. In the short time I have, I will make two brief points: on data and on strategy.

First, we all agree that, in a free state, rather than a police state, Government need to be respected and trusted and part of that trust surely rests on the use of data. We all remember how Labour was destroyed over what it said on the Gulf war and the dodgy dossiers. We cannot go down that route again with data. So does the Minister share my concern that so many people, including reputable scientists, have raised significant issues about how we are using data and the transparency of data? For me, the answer to that question is for the Government to become fully transparent with all the science and, in the spirit of the great national endeavour we are in, allow and encourage examination of that data by independent scientists, preferably prior to decision making, not commenting afterwards and finding significant flaws in the data. That data should include the full cost of lockdowns: medical, social and economic, and short and medium term.

Secondly, may we please have a strategic approach to this problem? It would be wonderful if a vaccine works perfectly, but that is unlikely and waiting for a magic bullet is not a strategy but the absence of one. If we have a clear strategy and clear use of data, it would be much easier for the Government to turn to Conservative Members and ask us for the support they will need in the weeks and months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate and to the tone of it. I add my personal thanks to all those who are working on the frontline and in public services. This has been an incredibly difficult year for those individuals, and there is arguably still much work to be done.

I would also like to add my thanks to the armed forces. We heard powerful speeches earlier this afternoon on everything that our armed forces have done, but they have also contributed enormously to our ability to tackle the pandemic so far through the distribution of PPE, rolling out mobile testing centres, building Nightingale hospitals and being involved in the important planning for the roll-out of a vaccine when one is fully approved.

I would like to thank all those who brought to this place today stories of personal loss—in particular, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who told us of the sad loss of her family member this week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who told us so poignantly about Jamie.

From many of the contributions, it is clear that hopes for a vaccine are running high following the encouraging news of the phase 3 trial results from Pfizer and BioNTech on Monday, and I share that sense of optimism. Science, academia, life sciences and private and public institutions have worked together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) said, we would not be here without such endeavours of the private sector working with us. It is a promising development, and the UK is ahead of the game in securing an order for 40 million doses.

I would like to thank the head of the vaccine taskforce. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said that she is “impressive” and on top of her brief. I could not have put it better than my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter). It is under her leadership that this is one of many vaccine candidates that we have secured.

There are six in total, two at phase 3. We have placed orders for a further 300 million doses from the five other candidates, which are yet to report. That also includes the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) highlighted the endeavours of AstraZeneca in Cambridge.

I share the sense of optimism, but I also want to associate myself with the words of caution that many Members have expressed, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). It is worth reiterating that the MRHA will not approve a vaccine unless it is clinically safe. There are still many unknowns. Until a vaccine is rolled out, we will not know how long its effects will last or its impact on reducing transmissions, and there are no guarantees.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) articulated the importance of making sure that people have accurate information to ensure that they take up vaccines. I assure her that the Government are working hard to ensure that people feel confident in the vaccine roll-out. We are working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, cross-Government and with technology companies to ensure that we limit misinformation and promote positive messages to get as much uptake of vaccination as we can. If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready with a large-scale vaccination programme, which is being worked on at the moment.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for their optimism in outlining the progress that we have made so far and how hard people have worked.

One point in particular that I would like to pick up on is PPE. When the pandemic started, we produced 1% of our PPE needs in the UK. By December, we will be providing 70% of the amount that we expect to use at the rates anticipated in December for all items except gloves. That is enormous progress. It is an industry that has been built from scratch, and it has been replicated through testing and diagnostics across the country. I would like to thank everyone involved.

But it has been tough, and nowhere has it been tougher—we have heard about how difficult it is—than for families with members of their family in care homes. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield, for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). I pay tribute to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has to perform an incredibly difficult balancing act. It is a terribly hard time for families and residents, but also for care home staff. Their first duty is to keep their residents safe.

Last Thursday, guidance was published to enable care home providers, families and local professionals to find the right balance between the benefits of visiting and the risk of transmission. Care home visits will be allowed to develop further via trials to allow more visits supported by testing. Care homes, like GPs, can access free PPE via the portal until March, so if people are not signed up, I would encourage them to do so.

On testing, the House should also be encouraged by the pilots, and I thank those hon. Members who were grateful for the roll-out of testing. I also thank all those hospitals, such as Warrington, who have run pilots for us. We cannot learn without developing these systems. We have the pilots in Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool in whole-town and city testing,  and we are now in a position to roll out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, something that I am grateful the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) mentioned. It is essential for the safety of patients and staff alike.

I will move on to international restrictions because, despite the positive developments, the national restrictions for England, which this House voted for last week, are as important as ever. Although I hear the calls of colleagues, we must remember that we are here to protect lives. However, I fully take on board that we are also here to protect livelihoods. I have heard those contributions on how the measures have impacted on businesses, and I recognise the strength of feeling on that.

[Bob Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Churchill]

I have only two minutes left. I would be happy to take the matter up with my hon. Friend afterwards.

I cannot speak for the Chancellor, but I know he will have heard the contributions by hon. and right hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, to ask him to listen to those who pay themselves through dividends. However, we have had an unprecedented package of support, including some £200 billion since March and the furlough scheme, which has protected the jobs of some 9 million people. I am married to a small business owner. Some 99% of all businesses in this country are SMEs and 95% of them are micros. This is hard, and nobody is denying that.

On data, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), because it is important. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but the scientific picture last week was bleak and the consequences, as we have seen, come in the 10 days after, with rising numbers of admissions and, tragically, deaths. The R rate was above 1 in every single region of the country. The virus is growing more quickly in older populations, and the number of cases in the over-60s in England doubled between 14 October and 4 November. That is why it was imperative to take action. As we deliver the vaccination, it will be the JVCI that determines how we roll it out and the risk stratification on which we do it.

We must persevere. I understand the weariness of people, but I close by echoing the words of many—I am sure all of us—and pay tribute to the NHS and care staff, who I know are exhausted. They will be so important in helping us get through this winter and, we hope, in delivering a safe and effective vaccine. I pay special tribute not only to the general practice community pharmacies and community health teams, but all workers on the frontline. There are some unsung heroes of the pandemic, and I want them to know how much we value them. It is through incredible contributions that we will see this through to a brighter day.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Covid-19

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I would like to talk briefly in the time I have about the need for strategy, the need to use science transparently and the balance of risk. Sadly, this lockdown is by definition a failure of policy because back in the first lockdown we were promised “never again”, but here we are.

We have draconian measures now while we wait for the cavalry in the form of a vaccine. But this is not a strategy, but the absence of one. May I now suggest that we need a strategy for living with the virus and giving people a sense of optimism grounded in a common-sense approach and a sense of proportion so that, rather than drifting in and out of lockdown and of restrictions, we give people a medium and long-term sense of what the future is likely to hold? A vaccine may not be a silver bullet. I would suggest “Keep calm and carry on” as a fairly commonsensical approach.

I am not quite sure about what the aims are. Are they to save life regardless? At the moment, we are sacrificing the lives of the young. Are the aims to save quality-adjusted life years? The Government’s own report from July said that the health impacts of the two-month lockdown were greater than those of direct covid deaths. Alternatively, are the aims to prioritise overall health outcomes, as Dr Raghib Ali suggests?

I would like very much for the Government to do more to present data in a balanced way and give significantly greater context than has otherwise been given. We need fatality rates and not just infection rates. Estimates of fatality started at 0.9% and have gone down since then. The latest evidence that we have from Stanford University, in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, based on 61 studies from around the world, showed a fatality rate of 0.27%—about three or four times worse than an average winter flu year. So as Professor Robert Dingwall says, despite all the hysteria, this is not a modern plague.

We also need to understand the balance of risk of covid with many other risks, including the loss of education for children, which is an appalling long-term consequence; the profound damage to mental health; the effect on our ability to live socially and to be human; the loss of liberty; the loss of freedom; the collapse in employment; the surge in unemployment; the increase in poverty, and the potential deaths that we know that will cause in future; and the collapse of Government finances. I know that everyone making these decisions that will devastate the lives of others is in pretty much secure jobs. Not one of us here is facing the same stress as the freelancers, the business people, the artists, the musicians, and the pub and restaurant owners. I have many of those folks in the Isle of Wight, whose lives are now on hold and whose ability to earn a living has been shattered despite the tiny risks to many of them.

I have to say that the poster of the ballerina being told to retrain as a cyber-expert was one of the most offensive things I have seen in years from Government. Someone strives for years, they have a goal and a passion, but some bureaucrat on a fat pension is going to shut down their life. I think it is right that so many people were angry about that, and I do feel that Government are obsessing about the risks of covid but ignoring many of the other risks that we have to balance with that. Professor Sikora has said:

“The full consequences of lockdowns haven’t been properly considered by those who claim to have the answers. If a wider range of voices had been considered from the start, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the utter mess we’re in.”

I am sorry to have to quote that, but I do think it is a valuable quote to have.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Bob Seely Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I would like to talk briefly about the need for a plan, the use of language and the use of science. I am delighted that the Minister is here, because he is a very diligent Minister and I know he listens closely to his colleagues.

First, we need a longer-term plan than the one that I think is on offer. We need a sense of strategy and a sense of clarity. We may be living with this virus for months or, in the worst case scenario, for years. Waiting for the cavalry in the shape of a vaccine is taking longer than we hoped, and there is a chance—a small chance—that it may never happen, but even if we get that vaccine in the weeks and months ahead, it may only be a mitigation, not a cure-all.

The promised return to normality by December clearly has not happened, so we need to articulate what is paramount to protect people as much as possible, while ensuring that the cure is not worse than the disease. I think that, at times, our posture has been reactive. That does not mitigate the fact that lots of good stuff has been done: our economic response has been powerful; Test and Trace, even imperfect, is an extraordinary achievement; and likewise, the Nightingale hospitals.

We are getting there, but I do not think we are there yet, and I think the answer needs to be more of a plan and perhaps more of a decentralised approach. Many of us have had concerns about this. We have said these things to the Whips, and I have been very careful about saying so publicly, but I think we are now at a juncture where it is beneficial that I and other colleagues are saying this.

Secondly, on language, I do not think the language of battle helps. Does the Minister agree with Professor Sikora, who has said:

“If you try to scare people with worst case scenarios, it doesn’t work”?

Talk of battle should be replaced by talk of “Keep calm and carry on”, because that is the language that I think we need.

Thirdly, and perhaps most critically, the Government talk about following the science, but actually it depends what question we ask the science. If we say, “Defeat the virus: suppress it in any way you can”, we get one course of action, and potentially a very destructive one. We must accept that the virus cannot be defeated, but be determined to mitigate it to protect as much as possible the elderly and the vulnerable, while trying to limit the damage to other people’s lives through increased cancer deaths, heart disease and strokes and—God knows—what must be happening to mental health in this country with people cooped up so much. We need a sense of balance.

To me, on the pubs issue, and on gyms and swimming pools, there is absolutely no evidence that shutting a pub or the restaurant in Yarmouth I was in on Saturday at 10 o’clock, or shutting a swimming pool or shutting a gym, actually helps prevent the transmission of this virus.

Independent Pharmacies

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate, which was prompted by a letter from an independent pharmacist in my constituency, Mr Tim Gibbs, who runs the Yarmouth pharmacy. Those who know it will know that it is not far from our beautiful harbour in Yarmouth and just opposite Yarmouth castle. I am delighted that this Minister is on the Front Bench, as I know she is a great supporter of pharmacies, pharmacists and indeed independent pharmacists. I am aware that the Health Secretary spoke at the National Pharmacy Association today. He spoke eloquently on the need for a major winter flu vaccination programme, which, clearly, we would welcome.

I will not speak for too long, as I am aware that one or two others wish to speak and it is getting late in the day, but I wish to cover some of the issues of concern to not only pharmacists, but independent pharmacists, who are especially important in isolated and rural communities, as other Members here, including those from places such as Cornwall, will testify. I have six independent pharmacists in my patch and all are highly valued. They include Tim in Yarmouth, Freshwater, Seaview, Ryde and Regent, which covers both East Cowes and Shanklin. I am grateful to Gary for taking the time to chat last week about some of the issues that have faced him.

Although many healthcare providers closed their doors during the covid pandemic, pharmacists stayed open, often at risk to themselves and their staff. For many people in our communities, NHS pharmacies were the visible face of healthcare on the high street. It is to their great credit that they stayed open and continued to serve their patients, often delivering medicines, at their own cost, to the homes of vulnerable and at-risk patients to make sure that those patients had what they needed. Pharmacy staff saw patients in person and ensured that the public—particularly vulnerable patients—had a consistent and safe supply of medicine. In doing so, they took considerable pressure off other elements of the health service, including GPs, who were often answering calls on the phone, and A&E.

However, I know from talking to Tim, Gary and other pharmacists in my patch that they face considerable financial insecurity on top of all the other problems. That is worse for pharmacists such as Tim who have to rely on over-the-counter trade. In Yarmouth, where there are a lot of yachts at weekends, he can usually make up the decline of income in other areas by selling soap and all the other good things that chemists sell, but in the covid period those sales took a significant hit. The same has been true for the independent pharmacies and many of the chemists in my patch. They have incurred many thousands of pounds in additional monthly costs from staying open and serving the community, and some of my independent pharmacists have even relied on volunteers.

Pharmacies have paid for the costs of installing screens, buying PPE—although I think the Isle of Wight Council helped Tim out after he requested it on a couple of occasions—hiring locums, paying overtime and absorbing the increases in the wholesale prices of medicines, which pharmacists are not allowed to pass on to their customers. That has created serious cash-flow problems.

I am very grateful, as we all are, that the Government provided £300 million in emergency loans to the sector at the outset of the crisis and have provided an additional £70 million since. Those are significant sums of money. The loans are, however, something of a sticking-plaster solution to cover the immediate covid costs that pharmacists have incurred and to make up for the longer-term shortfall. If pharmacists are left holding the bag for the costs that they have incurred through serving their communities in the past few months, many of them, including Tim, are worried that they will be forced to shut down in the next year or two. I believe that that would be a national shame. The ongoing uncertainty is an additional burden that pharmacists just do not need.

All pharmacists are valuable and they all play an important role. but because independent pharmacists are embedded in their community and represent a friendly, valued and, above all, trusted voice, they take pressure off A&E, GP surgeries and other areas of the NHS. On the Island, the number of GPs sits at roughly the average, but as the Minister well knows, we are struggling somewhat to make sure that there is an adequate supply of GPs to provide the primary care that this country needs.

I know that the Minister is a friend to pharmacists. Can she say something to reassure pharmacists—especially the independent ones—in my constituency and many others that the Government understand their valued and somewhat unique role, over and above chains of pharmacies, and that the Government wish to support them?

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a powerful speech, and I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. Having worked in an independent pharmacy while I was at school, I recognise the trusted relationship that he describes between the pharmacist and the community that they serve. When the funding formula for pharmacies changed in 2016, the then Minister told the then all-party group on pharmacy that between 1,000 and 3,000 pharmacies were expected to close because they would no longer be financially viable in the face of the cuts, so the outlook for pharmacies was already tough and bleak. A significant number of the pharmacies that have closed have been independent pharmacies. Does he agree that that is a real shame, and a real loss to those communities?

[Bob Seely]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. I was just about to quote those statistics myself, but I thank her for teeing up the next bit of what I would like to say.

As I understand it, the budget for community pharmacies is £2.6 billion—a significant amount of money but quite a small proportion of the NHS’s total budget. It stretches to cover some 11,500 community pharmacies, serving the majority of the population of the United Kingdom—about 56 million people. On average, each one serves about 5,000 people per month and dispenses 7,300 prescriptions.

In the last four years, as the hon. Member says, the funding for pharmacies has shrunk by a significant amount; I am quoted a figure of approximately £200 million. Tim and other pharmacists in my patch are concerned that there is now going to be significant additional pressure, and we have seen statistics to suggest that up to 3,000 pharmacies could close for good. That has not happened yet; these are threats. Some have closed, but the majority are still struggling on.

I believe that would be short-sighted in the extreme. I am sure the Minister agrees that a sustainable pharmacy sector is a critical part of the NHS network in this country because, as I said, it takes pressure off both A&E and GPs. We badly need it. Having used an independent community pharmacy myself, I know the added value of having somebody trusted to talk to, whether about a bunged-up ear because I swim too much—well, not at the moment—or about more serious concerns.

NHS pharmacies are ready and willing to support the test and trace programme—something I have knowledge of in my patch due to our experience trialling the app, which sadly was not taken further. They could help to ensure support for test and trace, for home testing kits, and certainly for the winter vaccination programme, which is likely to be of increased significance this year because of the potential for phase 2 of covid, which clearly we all hope does not happen.

There is strong public support for community pharmacies. A recent opinion poll showed that 81% hold a favourable view of pharmacies, 78% value a face-to-face relationship—I wish Members of this House had those sorts of approval ratings; we live in hope—and more than half want to see emergency covid funding turned into a permanent grant versus the significantly smaller amount who want to see it repaid.

Crucially, the public are ahead of the health bureaucracy in seeing the benefit of having this network of highly trained healthcare professionals in many communities in Britain; 84% say that the NHS should do more to make use of pharmacists’ skills. It does seem to be a bit of a wasted resource when we have people with so much skill and ability in dispensing medicine and in being the first port of call for many when they are feeling under the weather.

Some 71% of people think pharmacies should be able to expand their offering to take pressure off the NHS. I completely agree. I wonder how we can work towards that betterment, which is certainly in all our interests considering the relatively small amount of money compared with the overall NHS budget that goes towards pharmacies, specifically community pharmacies.

I will round up and let other Members speak, but may I tempt the Minister to talk about how she can support community pharmacies—the six in my patch but also the 11,500 across Britain? What can she say to reassure us that the financial support will be there? Losing independent pharmacies would be much more expensive in the long run than providing modest additional sums to ensure that we help keep their pharmacy businesses viable, especially during the covid period, when other elements of their business—the cash trade of the chemist—have clearly been declining. I very much look forward to her response.

Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). I intend to make two brief points, both to the Minister specifically and more generally. First, I want to thank the NHS staff on the Island, thank Islanders for using the app and thank care home staff; and secondly, I want to reinforce some points about the fragility of health services in unavoidably small hospitals. I am aware that the Minister has heard that before from me, and I fear that she will hear it in the future too.

First, I thank NHS staff on the Isle of Wight for the remarkable work they have done, and I thank the leadership team under Maggie, Darren and Paul for the work they have done to reconfigure St Mary’s Hospital incredibly quickly. All the feedback that I have had from people who have been in the hospital has expressed a massive thanks to all the NHS staff on the Isle of Wight.

Secondly, I thank Islanders for using the sadly ill-fated app. About 75% of Islanders who could download it did so, which reinforces my efforts to develop a relationship with the Government in which we get to pilot schemes on the Island. We know that social scientists like isolated communities to pilot schemes on. For me, the best way to get the Isle of Wight to the front of the queue is to ensure that we pilot national schemes. We have had four in the last year. The app was the least successful, although we actually ran a pretty successful test. It cost £11 million —rather less than the £11 billion that new Labour spent on the IT system back in the early 2000s, but we will park that for the moment. We are testing drones flying into St Mary’s, which is excellent, and that drone test is going well. We are one of the hospitals testing dexamethasone, if I have said it correctly, which is potentially a fantastically good treatment for covid. We are also one of the health authorities piloting the use of telemedicine, which clearly is especially important as we have an isolated community separated from the mainland by water. I am grateful to Islanders, and I make no apologies for trying to get pilot schemes for the Island and I will continue to do so.

I also thank nursing home staff who have been extraordinarily diligent. I have spoken to many, including Belinda in Sandown, and Ian Bennett. I am grateful for their advice and the feedback that I got from many other people who work in care homes. I did visit one that had an outbreak of corona, and it was a pretty distressing situation. I am very much involved with many people who work in the care home environment.

I have a series of questions about care homes. The more we can test staff—fortnightly, if not weekly—the better. It would be good to know from the Government when the care badge scheme will be launched. The crisis in care homes has brought home the importance for us all of ensuring that our social care is fit for the 21st century. I know that is a much bigger issue which this Minister, and other Ministers, are dealing with.

My final point is on significant additional pressures to unavoidably small hospitals. There are 12 in England and Wales. The Minister knows the facts and figures, and she has been good enough to talk to me about this in the past. We put the additional extra costs of running an unavoidably small hospital on an island at about £12 million a year. The NHS long-term plan sets out a 10 year strategy and it says it is unable to find evidence of specific unavoidable costs, but I beg to differ. I think we have evidence of what those unavoidable costs are, both generally in terms of unavoidably small hospitals, but also specifically in the case of the Isle of Wight. In fact, we have specifically listed and itemised those additional expenditures when compared to a hospital that has a more average size population. As the Minister knows, St Mary’s is about half that of a normal district general hospital.

Coronavirus Bill

Bob Seely Excerpts

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

[Matt Hancock]

The threshold is to do with staff shortages. I say gently to the hon. Lady that I understand her concerns, but in fact the purpose of these measures is precisely the opposite: it is to make sure that when there is a shortage of social care workers, those who need social care to live their everyday life get it and can be prioritised ahead of those who have a current legal right to social care under the Care Act 2014 but for whom it is not a matter of life and death. This is absolutely about prioritising the vulnerable. That is the purpose of the legislation, but I understand her concern, and that is why we put the safeguards in place to ensure that the prioritisation works as intended.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I have a general question about the supply of medicine. Paul Howard, a consultant in palliative medicine at our excellent hospice on the Island, says that under patient group direction—that is, group prescriptions—nurses can give out morphine, but due to a quirk in the rules they cannot give similar powerful opiate painkillers. Will the Bill enable nurses to give controlled drugs as part of patient group direction? I ask not only in case medical supplies run short, but specifically because we on the Island rely on ferries, and such a provision would give us slightly more diversity in patient treatment.

[Matt Hancock]

I will look into those specific points. There are parts of the Bill that would help to tackle the problem my hon. Friend describes if it is appropriate to do so, but I think it is better if I get some medical advice and then get back to him.

The third part of the Bill contains measures to slow the spread of the virus. As the disease accelerates, our goal is to protect life, to protect the vulnerable and to protect the NHS by flattening the curve and minimising unnecessary social contact. This is a national effort, and everyone has their part to play—self-isolating if someone or anyone in their house has symptoms, working from home wherever possible, avoiding social gatherings and, of course, regularly washing your hands.

The Bill provides for us to go further: it gives us stronger powers to restrict or prohibit events and public gatherings and, where necessary, to shut down premises; and it gives the police and Border Force the power to isolate a person who is or may be infectious. This part of the Bill also allows us to close educational settings or childcare providers, and to postpone for one year elections that were due to take place in England in May. These are not measures anyone would want to take, but they are absolutely necessary in this crisis.

Covid-19

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I have addressed the question on testing repeatedly. I am delighted that we go into this situation with a record number of people in our NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Covid-19 may put particular pressure on the dozen or so unavoidably small hospitals that serve isolated and island communities. We have one respiratory consultant on the Island, and we are ferry-dependent. I know that the Secretary of State is very busy, but will he assure me that isolated communities will not be forgotten about when it comes to mutual aid, clear advice and the supply of medicine and equipment?

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely. I discussed that issue with officials today.

Income tax (charge)

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenges for particular sectors that are posed by what is currently happening, and he is right to mention the hotel and hospitality trade. Alongside the measures set out by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport continues to have discussions, not only within his Department and across Government but with the sector, about what can be done to ensure that it gets the appropriate support that it needs as a sector.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Just to follow up on that point, I have several cases of businesses coming to me and saying that their business-interruption cover is not being recognised by their insurance companies because coronavirus was not a notifiable disease at the time. If the insurance industry takes that attitude nationwide, many businesses—not only in tourism and hospitality—are going to go to the wall, and my constituents on the Isle of Wight will be especially badly hit.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Treasury, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and others are in conversations with the industry more broadly—I believe that more conversations are set to occur tomorrow—to ensure that businesses get the support that they need and are treated in a fair way.

Our investment in the financial health of the nation includes £40 million for literal vaccines, research and testing, because we base our decisions on the bedrock of the science. This national response is made possible because of our careful stewardship of the British economy over the past 10 years—because record numbers of businesses are making, selling and hiring; because millions more people are in work, earning and paying taxes; and because we have backed the NHS with a record long-term funding settlement.

This is a national effort and we will get through this together, as the Prime Minister has said. In Government, we will do the right thing at the right time, working through each stage of our coronavirus action plan guided by the science and the advice of our medical and scientific experts. We will stop at nothing to defeat the disease, but we will succeed only if everyone does their bit: washing their hands regularly; self-isolating for seven days if they have symptoms, such as a new, continuous, persistent cough or a high temperature; and looking out for their neighbours. In that spirit, may I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), my constituency neighbour, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for the constructive approach that they have taken since the start of the outbreak? They are doing their bit. They are good and decent people and public servants, and their approach is a prime example of how we can work together during this crisis.

Health Inequalities

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is great to see two Ministers on the Front Bench. For me, health inequalities are closely linked to the health of my local NHS trust, so I make no apologies for talking about Isle of Wight healthcare in relation to health inequalities. I do so within the framework of the unavoidably small hospitals programme, which is potentially a very interesting move by this Government. I discussed it with the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and the Secretary of State last week. The background is as follows: 12 national hospitals qualify as unavoidably small, and the economics of those hospitals has an impact on healthcare, especially in a place such as the Isle of Wight, which has a 100% remoteness factor, because we are separated by the sea. The diseconomies of scale over a wide range of health issues affect the ability to deliver healthcare to the same standard as on the mainland. That is part of the wider issue I am looking at when seeking an Isle of Wight deal. We reckon that the additional costs of providing healthcare on the Island to the same standard as on the mainland is about £12 million. I will not go further into the details, because of a shortage of time, but I have talked to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health about that.

What do I intend to do about this? I am going to try to secure debates on the USH programme, in the hope that the 20 or so Members concerned, mostly Conservatives but with one Opposition Member, will join in supporting me, so that we can ensure that Ministers understand the additional pressures on these hospitals.

I will also make the case to Sir Simon Stevens for looking at increased revenue for unavoidably small hospitals, especially on the Island, which has a 100% remoteness factor. We will, though, continue to drive efficiency on the Island. Our chief executive Maggie Oldham and the leadership team are looking at doing that by linking up with Portsmouth district general hospital and with Solent NHS mental health trust, and by doing other good things so that we use public money as efficiently as possible.

I would very much like recognition from the Government that there is an additional cost for unavoidably small hospitals because of diseconomies of scale. That should translate into something in terms of revenue. In addition, when it comes to helping Islanders to get patient treatment on the mainland, there are additional costs for patient travel. I will leave it there.

NHS Funding Bill

Bob Seely Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I have spoken at length in this Chamber before about the prospects of an Island deal on the Isle of Wight, and I was delighted when on 25 September last year the Prime Minister spoke of the Island deal that we will do. I would like to come to that, but first I want to come to the crux of the Bill.

I very much welcome the Bill. I feel a little guilty about barracking Ministers earlier today about Huawei, so I want to go out of my way to congratulate Ministers, and indeed the entire Health Front-Bench team, who I have a great deal of time for, on putting together this Bill. I thank in particular the Minister present, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), because he and I have talked on various different occasions about the Isle of Wight, and I apologise for that; he is extremely knowledgeable not only about his constituency, but about many others as well, and I know he does his job.

I like the levelling up idea behind a lot of what the Government are going to do, because, just as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), my patch has also lost out in funding in many different ways in the past 10 or 15 years. I spoke briefly with the Secretary of State last week about some concerns in relation to the Isle of Wight NHS Trust. We have an increase in serious incident reporting, which was reported by the Health Service Journal under freedom of information requests last week, and I congratulate the journalist responsible for that work. I have to say that in part the increase in reporting is because that was encouraged by the new management, and I am very supportive of the new management, which is trying to turn things around in the hospital.

Sadly, our staff morale tends to be at the bottom of the NHS staff morale charts, and we have issues about recruitment, somewhat because we are an Island, and that feeds into morale issues and the use of locums, and there is less time for patient treatment.

We are now graded as requiring improvement rather than in special measures. When I was talking with the Secretary of State last week, he specifically said, “Focus on the management,” and I said “You’re absolutely right, Secretary of State, to focus on management issues and how we need to support the management team on the Isle of Wight and all our senior doctors—our consultants—as well as all the NHS staff.” But there is also an issue of funding, which I would like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of in the couple of minutes I have left.

My hon. Friend knows about this, as I have talked to him about it, and I have spoken to the Secretary of State, who admitted in July that the Isle of Wight is

“unique in its health geography, and that there are places in this country—almost certainly including the Isle of Wight—where healthcare costs are higher”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2019; Vol. 662, c. 943.]

I just want to remind the Minister of that and say that I wrote to the Prime Minister and forwarded the letter to the Department of Health and others.

Working with the Isle of Wight NHS Trust, we estimate that the additional cost of providing NHS services on the island to the same standard as on the mainland is approximately £11 million. There are many academic studies, both internationally and nationally, to do with Scotland and to do with England that show that the costs of providing public services are greater specifically on islands, because there is severance by sea. Academics give various sophisticated names to that—such as diseconomies of scale and island factors. Basically however, it means that on the Isle of Wight we have a district general hospital—I thank all the staff who work there; they do a great job in sometimes difficult circumstances—but we have only half the population base of district general hospitals, so we do not get the same tariffs, and as a result of that everything costs more; it is very difficult to get the same efficiencies and economies of scale. We estimate that the additional cost of providing the same standard of acute care on the Island as against the mainland is £8.9 million a year. It would be great to meet with either the Minister or the Secretary of State to discuss that. The additional cost of providing an ambulance service, which includes a coastguard helicopter ambulance, is about £1.5 million, and we need to add to that the cost of patient travel by ferry—which can be uncomfortable and difficult for those going for repeated treatment on the mainland, such as to Southampton for cancer care—which works out at about £560,000 a year.

The Secretary of State is right that there has been a management issue, and we are trying to confront it, and that has fed into lots of other problems with HR, low morale and difficulty in recruiting consultants, but we are in a vicious financial cycle as well. If we cancel an operation due to lack of beds, we do not receive the tariff from that operation, and we have doctors, and consultants and senior doctors, who are not using their talents for the greater good. I will leave that point there, because I know that we need to wrap up, but I remind my hon. Friend the Minister and those on the Front Bench of the additional costs, which we have worked out and presented to the Government, of providing NHS care to the same standard as on the mainland. I am not asking for golden elephants or anything over and above what my excellent hon. Friends on this side of the House or Members on the other side receive, but we estimate that providing us with the same standards costs us an additional £11 million a year.

[Several hon. Members rose—]