Abortion Services Commissioning: Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley]

That was a telling point and absolutely right and proper. Yes, this does dishonour and betray the devolution settlement. There are no two ways about; that is the only want it cuts. When powers are devolved to one region and then it is decided that it is not doing things the way we like, so the powers should be taken back, that is not lost on anyone.

We are not allowed to make up facts in this debate. The myth has been projected today that the majority of people in Northern Ireland agree to and with the most liberal abortion laws in any other part of the United Kingdom. Given that that has never been tested, that statement is erroneous and not factual. Any time the Assembly has voted on such matters over the years, it has taken the other view. Whenever this House has voted on it, the representatives from Northern Ireland who attend this place were divided, but the majority voted against the new regulations as outlined.

We cannot make up the facts and pretend that, because one or two Members support this, all Northern Ireland supports it. That is a myth and one that has to be challenged. Talk to any section of society in Northern Ireland, in the tribal way that Northern Ireland is often caricatured—talk to members of the Roman Catholic faith, members of the Protestant faith, members of no faith—and one will find that the weight of opinion is solidly for the rights of the unborn child. That is the socially conservative society that Northern Ireland actually is.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some 80% of respondents to the consultation on the imposition of the legislation did not want it imposed on Northern Ireland, which completely dispels the myth that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are pro-abortion. In fact, they are pro-life.

[Ian Paisley]

I do not need to make the point, because my hon. Friend has just made it so exceptionally well.

When the regulations were first set in train in July 2019, it was argued in this Parliament that Parliament was duty-bound to pass the amendment that became section 9 because Northern Ireland, it was stated, was in violation of its international human rights obligations under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the recommendations of the 2018 CEDAW Committee report on Northern Ireland.

However, when ones drills down into that report, the explanatory memorandum to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 acknowledges the fact, which the Government now confirm, that paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW Committee report, which the House rested upon when it made its case in 2019, do not constitute legally binding international obligations. Constantly, those arguing for these liberal laws hang their hat on the false premise that it was an international obligation, when it was no such thing. That myth needs to be dispelled. We should not base our laws upon a lie, and that is what has happened. That is why people are so agitated about what the Government did.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd is right: everyone is entitled to their own opinions on these serious, weighty and emotional matters; however, they and the Government are not entitled to make a pretence that the law was an international obligation that had to be followed when it was no such thing. The Government have now changed their former line of reasoning, arguing that it is the 2019 Act rather than the CEDAW recommendations that requires them to force Stormont to implement the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 and the 2021 regulations. If ever something has been made perverse, it is the way in which the law is now being argued for.

It is plainly an untenable situation, where non-binding recommendations have been misrepresented to create a binding Act that removes any obligation to and any protection that the unborn child heretofore had. In doing so, the Government leave Northern Ireland in a straitjacket on one of the most sensitive issues that it could ever consider. The UK Government should not have imposed the same law on Northern Ireland that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has criticised in respect of the United Kingdom. That committee expressed its concern

“about perceptions in society that stigmatize persons with disabilities…and about the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of fetal impairment.”

By allowing for abortion up to birth—think of it—in cases of non-foetal disabilities such as Down’s syndrome, cleft lip and club foot, the regulations are deeply offensive to the values of Northern Irish people and their politicians.

The House is currently considering a private Member’s Bill that the Government have given fair wind to, introduced by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), on the rights of children with disabilities. I am honoured to be the secondary sponsor of that Bill. On the one hand, Parliament is trying to introduce laws to protect children with Down’s syndrome, to honour them and to give them their place in society. At the same time, this House says, “Destroy that Down’s syndrome child.” That is what is perverse and wrong, and it is why people are so agitated.

We shall see evidence of that in the latest progress of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which is being debated as we speak in Stormont. There is a myth that a majority of Northern Ireland politicians are for these liberal laws, when, in fact, the only vote that has taken place in the legislative Assembly since these laws were introduced was on a law to amend them and to remove some of the most horrible liberal policies that affect the unborn. That point, and that sense of irony, is not lost on us.

I welcome the fact of this debate. I also welcome the fact that the Opposition are not here in force today. I think that is surprising, because the Opposition have made a habit of trying to push these matters on to Northern Ireland. I think that, perhaps, under their leader the penny is starting to drop that they cannot keep interfering in the devolution process. They cannot keep saying on the one issue—the Protocol—that they cannot get involved in a debate because they are defending the Belfast agreement, and then the next day come into this place and say, “We want to interfere in the Belfast agreement, set its issues aside, and interfere in a piece of legislation in Northern Ireland.” They cannot have it both ways—that is the message that we send out. This House cannot have it both ways, because that would be obscene and it would be wrong.

Today, I proudly proclaim my defence of, and give my voice to, the unborn. The unborn have a right to life. It is not a health issue to remove the life of an unborn child. It is a moral issue, and this House should have the moral compass to do what is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a matter of deep regret that this House has sought to impose its will above the devolution settlement. At the heart of devolution must lie respect for the areas of legislation that have been determined to fall within the jurisdiction of devolved authorities. In complex and highly charged matters such as abortion, the benefit of the doubt should always be granted to the devolved authorities that they are capable of managing their own affairs.

Both the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 were passed despite the overwhelming majority of MPs representing Northern Ireland who take their seats in Westminster voting against the regulations on both occasions, despite the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation on the legislation being opposed to its imposition in Northern Ireland and despite the Assembly being back up and running prior to those regulations becoming law. The very premise for the legislation was flawed, with the claim that intervention was required by Westminster because Northern Ireland was in breach of international law. That claim has been demonstrated to be absolutely wrong—even the explanatory notes for the legislation noted that the CEDAW report recommendations

“are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”

My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) eloquently outlined the change that had to be made in the regulations’ explanatory notes to demonstrate that the very foundation on which that law was brought forward was factually incorrect. That is a crazy way to make law—to build it on something that is fundamentally wrong.

The regulations go far beyond what is legally required, as well as beyond the law in England and Wales. They are also discriminatory against those diagnosed with disabilities. A submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:

“Abortion is a sensitive matter throughout the United Kingdom, but no more so than in Northern Ireland to which the Abortion Act 1967 has not been extended”.

The Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

“radically alter the framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland”,

and

“its provisions exceed those already available elsewhere in the UK. For example,”

that includes unconditional access to abortion where

“the pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week”.

We hear about Northern Ireland’s stance on pro-life and about the number of people who have had to make a difficult journey to GB for access, but we do not often hear about the 100,000 lives who are alive today in Northern Ireland because we did not sign up to the 1967 Act. One hundred thousand lives—people working in our hospitals and the NHS, teachers, and those right throughout our society who are alive today and contributing to society because they were not aborted. Our law values life.

Tragically, the radical regulations permit sex-selective abortion, since the sex of a foetus can be determined through non-invasive prenatal testing. Imagine, baby girls—in the main—being aborted just because they are girls. We call ourselves a progressive society; there is nothing progressive about having a law that allows for babies to be aborted because of their sex.

On the subject of disability, Lord Shinkwin noted during the debate in the other place on the latest version of the abortion regulations imposed on Northern Ireland earlier this year:

“The regulations…threaten me because they challenge that right by devaluing my existence. The narrative of the regulations is that I should not really exist. Indeed, I would be better off dead.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2271.]

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

On that point, on the importance of the unborn and of protection for the unborn, and on the recognition of that in law, whenever we hear of incidents such as the Omagh bombing, when the unborn were killed, they are included in the numbers of the dead. In the incident at Hillsborough, the unborn were included among the dead. I believe that that is the point: they are a life and they are deemed in law to be a life. The recognition is there, and yet now we believe that we can snuff it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. the most basic human right is the right to life and, unfortunately, in our society now the unborn do not have that right. That is not right, and we should not accept it.

As Lord Shinkwin notes, the CEDAW recommendations, one of the great premises on which the law was introduced, expressly prohibit perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities. The regulations appear to contravene the very recommendations to which they claim to conform. Other Members may be unaware—Members from Northern Ireland have already noted this point in the debate—that proceedings continue in Northern Ireland today, highlighting how unwarranted and extreme these abortion regulations are.

This very afternoon, Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland will consider the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my good friends and colleagues, MLAs Paul Givan and Christopher Stalford. The Bill seeks to amend the regulations to remove the ground for an abortion in cases of severe foetal impairment.

The Bill passed the second stage in the Northern Ireland Assembly with 48 votes to 12, and was supported by an overwhelming 99.55% of the more than 9,000 submissions to the Northern Ireland Committee for Health consultation. The Bill will now have its consideration stage this afternoon. It goes some way towards meeting the objective of the CEDAW report, on which section 9 of the 2020 regulations is framed—that stereotypes towards persons with disabilities should not be perpetuated. Under the current regulations, babies with entirely non-fatal disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, cleft palate and club foot, can be singled out for abortion in Northern Ireland because of their disability. The provisions allow for them to be aborted right up to birth.

As has been said, we need a society that values people. We see the amazing Bill that has been brought forward for children and young people and people living with Down’s syndrome. We want a society where our legislation values those people and lets them see that we want them to exist and to contribute to society. Our abortion laws allow for them to be aborted up to birth. That tells people with disabilities that their lives are less worthy of protection than the lives of those without disability, and perpetuates deeply unhelpful stereotypes about their quality of life by suggesting that it might be better for them not to have been born.

The regulations matter because they send a clear message that people with disabilities are not equal to others—the Bill being discussed in Northern Ireland today says they are. In England and Wales, where a very similar law is in place, 90% of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome before birth are aborted, and we know of women who have been offered multiple terminations of their unborn child, up to a very late stage of pregnancy, because their child has been diagnosed with the disability.

A submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the 2021 regulations noted:

“The Committee will recall that the proposals consulted on by the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the 2020 Regulations were rejected by almost 80% of those responding. And yet this breadth of feeling was not reflected in the legislation which subsequently ensued.”

The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill

“goes some way to begin to redress that democratic deficit.”

The Bill indicates the Assembly’s capacity to legislate for itself on abortion, as well as the disparity between the regulations imposed without consent on Northern Ireland and the views of the majority of the population and their elected representatives. I urge the Government to rethink, to respect the devolution settlement and to allow Stormont the time and space to formulate a made-in and made-for Northern Ireland policy.

Finally, I pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who has left early. Never once in this debate is the baby mentioned by the pro-abortion speakers. It is all about the women. I value women. I am a woman myself. I have a baby myself. I value women, but I also value the life of the unborn. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has said, I am unashamedly pro-life. I will be a voice for the voiceless. We need to get to a point in this society where our laws legislate and create a society that values life and where people can choose life. Yes, we need additional services—I would be the first to say that—to help women who choose life, but I want our laws to value the unborn and value the baby in the womb.

Health and Care Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I will be exceptionally brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak on amendments 103 to 105. It seems clear to me that when a House has made a decision to impose statutory obligations on local authorities and other local bodies, we need to ensure that they are effectively consulted, in order to bring their expertise and local insight to bear in improving the quality of services that are offered to our patients. I hope that Ministers will be taking that on board in their response tonight.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I wish to speak to new clauses 51 and 52, both of which stand in my name. New clause 51 relates to the practice of abortion based on sex selection, and it seeks to clarify that abortion on the grounds of the sex of the foetus alone is illegal. Hon. Members from across the House would doubtless agree that aborting a baby on the basis of their sex is immoral, yet the status of this in law remains unclear.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that this horrible practice is taking place in Great Britain today. A 2018 BBC investigation found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being used on a widespread basis to determine babies’ sex early in pregnancy. We know that women are being coerced into having abortions based on sex selection. This was confirmed by a 2015 report from the Department of Health that detailed the awful testimonies of women who had been forced into a sex-selective abortion. The problem has been made much worse by the use of abortions pills to be taken at home. Abusive partners who do not want a particular sex of child—usually a girl—can more easily force their partner into having an abortion via telemedicine. The new clause seeks clarification that this practice is illegal, so provides an opportunity for the Government to do more to help women who are pressured into having an abortion on the basis of sex.

I wish briefly to touch on new clause 52—also tabled in my name—which would introduce an upper gestational limit on abortion on the grounds of disability that is equal to the upper limit on most other abortions. It would correct the current deeply discriminatory situation that permits abortion up to birth if

“there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”

That has been interpreted as permitting abortions up to birth following the diagnosis of either a cleft lip, a cleft palate or a club foot. This is inconsistent with disability discrimination legislation, because it allows for abortion on the grounds of disability more widely than most abortions are allowed.

[Jim Shannon]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that a large number of people throughout the whole United Kingdom object to this? We have had hundreds and hundreds of emails from my constituents about this issue. I commend my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and totally oppose new clause 50—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. That intervention is quite long enough.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will not push either of my new clauses to a vote. However, legal clarification on sex-selective abortion is urgently needed for the sake of women and the missing girls who are the victims of this abhorrent practice.

I commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). As evidence changes, so should the law, and 22 weeks’ gestation is the point of foetal viability. At heart, this is a debate about human rights, and the most basic human right is the right to life.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I support new clause 19, which I signed, and will wait to see what the Minister says about it.

I want to take issue with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who turned around and said to Ministers, “Be careful what you wish for.” Our constituents send us here to represent how their taxation is spent in the NHS. When trusts are refusing to build new hospitals in our constituencies when they have the money to do so, and they want to refurbish hospitals and ignore public opinion and their local MPs, that is where the system goes wrong. I am not saying we should go all the way back to the old system, but there should be accountability in trusts when they do not do what our constituents would expect from them. My constituents would expect me to stand up and say this, because we want a new hospital on a greenfield site to look after the people of west Hertfordshire and our trust is refusing. If the shadow Minister ever becomes a Minister, I hope he has those powers.

Women’s Health Strategy

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I answer this question as a post-menopausal woman. The online survey within the call for evidence seeks information on the menopause. It explores the menopause across various themes, including listening to women’s voices, access to information on women’s health across the life course and women’s health in the workplace. I encourage stakeholders and women with experience of this area to respond to the call so that we can identify future work. Women often face damaging taboos when starting a conversation about their health. It is really important that we start smashing those taboos here, as we have been doing for a number of years now, and that we talk about the menopause openly. Women can often face unsympathetic and stigmatised responses when speaking about the menopause, particularly in the workplace, which is clearly unacceptable. This Government are committed to breaking down those taboos, supporting women and working women at all stages of their life, and enabling them to reach their potential. This includes, of course, having more open conversations on the menopause, whether that be with healthcare professionals or employers, and assisting women through that stage in their life, so that they can remain full and active contributors during that stage of their life in their chosen careers or workplaces. I urge my hon. Friend to click on the link, to get involved and to make sure that women she knows do the same.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Minister for outlining that women can discuss anything during this consultation. Can she therefore outline what efforts will be made to reach out and gather evidence from mums such as Rachel Mewes, who said on Twitter that she was pressured to consider having a late-term abortion at seven months pregnant, when she had previously stated repeatedly that she would never terminate for Down’s syndrome? As a result, she now has post-traumatic stress disorder and has said that being forced to imagine someone killing her little girl Betsy nearly destroyed her. Has the Minister considered the devastating impact that this kind of treatment is having on women’s health and wellbeing during pregnancy, and does she agree that disability discrimination in the womb should end?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting her constituent’s concerns. Abortion as such will not be part of the women’s health strategy, because it is being discussed under the sexual and reproductive strategy, which is also ongoing, and is a conscience issue in this House. It is not decided on party lines, it is down to individual Members’ votes, so it will not form part of the women’s health strategy, which will be about policy. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right; we will take evidence, we will look at that evidence and, if it comes in via the portal, we will pass it on to the sexual and reproductive strategy. However, there are no taboos and nothing that cannot be discussed. We want to hear about all women’s health issues, and I urge her to urge everybody she knows to click on the link and get involved.

Covid-19 Update

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I will. My hon. Friend rightly raises a very important subject. I will make sure that that is properly taken into account.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. There will be significant concern among the population of Northern Ireland that entering into the UK could continue through Dublin, putting people in my constituency at additional risk of new variants. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not behaviour becoming of a good neighbour? In fact, it is quite shameful and irresponsible for the Government of the Irish Republic to refuse to share arrivals data with the UK. Furthermore, if this continues, does he agree that the hard border currently being enforced by the Irish Republic, restricting travel from north to south, will have to be enforced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to stop entrance into Northern Ireland from across the border, to protect the UK?

[Matt Hancock]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I reassure every one of her constituents and all citizens across Northern Ireland that we work closely with the Government in Dublin to ensure that data is shared properly and that both Governments have an appropriate system to safeguard our borders against the challenges that we face while allowing free travel within the common travel area.

Vaccine Roll-out

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend asks an astute question which, in a way, demonstrates the challenge we have. There is a demand for more early information about when vaccine will arrive but, because of the lumpy supply, if we give too much prior notice, we sometimes have to make adjustments like the one my hon. Friend described. The good news is that we are on track to deliver the quadrupling of the amount of vaccine to the Isle of Sheppey that he describes. Like him, I very much hope that the full 1,200 doses will come.

We are sending more doses to the areas that have made the least progress so far, to make sure that by 15 February we get that offer to everybody equally, irrespective of where they live, across England for the English NHS and, indeed, we are working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that that offer is delivered fairly right across the UK. There is prioritisation of the areas that have made least progress so far, and I am working with NHS colleagues to make sure that that is done as fairly and effectively as possible.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for the support being given to the people of Northern Ireland. I know he will join me in thanking our frontline healthcare workers who are delivering the vaccine in our communities.

The Secretary of State will know that the key to maximising the uptake of a vaccine is the assurance of its efficacy, but also that if people take part, it will enable life to return to normal—it will enable schools and business to reopen and family life, particularly for elderly relatives either at home or in care homes, to be restored. The public need that hope, yet while we hear much positivity, we also hear of long-term restrictions of many aspects of what was, and should again be, normal life. Can the Health Secretary give an assurance that he will provide leadership on the public messaging and its tone, and set out a route map for the return of the liberty and freedoms that we once enjoyed, and want to enjoy again?

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely. We all want to enjoy those liberties again, and we want to do so safely. Balancing those two things is at the core of the conundrums of policy, and has been throughout this pandemic. The critical thing is to make sure we get this vaccine rolled out as fast as possible. That is at the centre of the route out, throughout these islands and, indeed, across the world. I understand the yearning for a clearer map out, but until we know the impact of the vaccine on transmission, it is hard to put timescales on that.

We have to watch the data. Of course I want to see the number of cases come down, but the reason why that matters so much is that we want to see the number of hospitalisations come down. We want fewer people to die each day from this dreadful disease. The numbers published yesterday—more than 1,800 people died—were truly terrible, and we need to make sure we protect life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I hope that by working through the Burnley and Lancashire councils, and by working with the national testing programme, we can get asymptomatic testing available for those who have to go to work. Key workers need to go to work, even through this most difficult of times. I will make sure that the testing Minister picks up with my hon. Friend straight after this, and that we work together to make sure that everybody across Burnley who has to go to work has access, if they want it, to a testing regime, to help ensure that they can be safe in work.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

The Secretary of State will know the unprecedented physical and emotional strain our frontline nurses and medics are facing in the fight against covid-19. This is exacerbated by staff shortages, with increasing demand for care falling on our already worn-out staff. Would he agree that to encourage more people into nursing, and to retain our healthcare heroes in the NHS, we must look at increasing pay to a level that recognises the skills, responsibility and commitment that the nursing and healthcare professions require?

[Matt Hancock]

I am really pleased that over the past few years in the English health service that I am responsible for, we have increased the pay of nursing staff. I am also pleased that when the new Northern Ireland Administration were set up about a year ago, one of the first things they did was to resolve the challenges in terms of nurses’ pay. This is a very important subject. It is one that is devolved, but I look forward to working with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, who is doing a brilliant job in supporting the Province through these very difficult times.

Childhood Cancers: Research

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate and all those who signed the e-petition. Cameron Truesdale’s name will not resonate with people in this room, but I am speaking of a little boy who is now safe in the arms of Jesus. He was a little 11-year-old boy from my constituency, who had so much to live for but who did not get the opportunity.

His mum described him as sweet, shy and popular. He never had a bad word to say about others. He was good at maths. In his own words, he wanted to be an “entrepreneur”. He was a super cool big brother and he adored his sisters Chloe, Courtney and Catlin. Sadly, Cameron’s life ended on 3 September 2018, but his memory is still alive.

When Cameron was diagnosed with DIPG cancer in January 2017, his family were told that he would have nine months to live, if he was to receive radiotherapy and steroids. “Go home and make memories”—the most chilling and heart-wrenching words that any family will ever hear. Cameron’s family were devastated that in the 21st century they would be told that there was no hope and, no matter what they did for Cameron, he would die anyhow. Cameron’s family believe that where there is life, there is hope. Cameron’s family immediately looked at therapies around the world. They raised thousands of pounds and travelled to Mexico, where Cameron received treatment. While it did not save his life, it gave them hope and extra time to make those memories.

Cameron and his family fought DIPG with courage and determination. Cameron did not want to die. Even towards the end, when he was very poorly and DIPG had stolen every function apart from his ability to know what was going on, his mum asked him whether he wanted to stop fighting and just rest, or for her to stop fighting. With tears running down his face, even in agony, he did not want to stop, because he loved life.

We have already heard today that the survival rate for DIPG is 0%. That is just not good enough and not what we should settle for. Cameron should not be a statistic and we do not want any other families to go through the pain and anguish of losing a child. In Northern Ireland alone, three young people are diagnosed with cancer every week. That means three young people facing huge physical and emotional challenges, doubts, fears and anxieties. We must ensure that science is being supported to increase survival rates and to break this dark, sleekid thief.

Globally, we have poured billions into finding a vaccine for covid-19, because the will has been there to do so. We need a similar will and focus on cancer. I recognise that the Government have invested millions of pounds into cancer research, but amid the myriad cancer types that exist, we must ensure that childhood cancer receives the specific attention that it demands. I fully support the call for ring-fenced funds for new research. We need a specific fund that targets childhood cancer, and particularly those cancers that have the lowest survival rates. We need transparency on specific cancer types and age data, and we also need exceptionalism and expediency. Every life lost is one too many.

The message of the last week, with the news of the covid vaccine, brought hope. It also highlighted that when science is supported, it can make the breakthroughs we need. The Government should do the same for cancer, because none of us knows whose family could be next.

Covid-19 Update

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I will absolutely take up all those suggestions. We are in discussions with Kirklees about what more we can do, including in the area of large-scale community testing and the other considerations necessary to make that happen.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

The Secretary of State is to be commended for the initiative that he and the Minister for Care have spearheaded to allow close-contact visits between relatives and residents in care home settings. Will the proposed access vary depending on what tier a home is located in? I acknowledge that care is a devolved issue, but with little progress being made in this regard in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State undertake to share the experiences of his pilot with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland so that my constituents can also look forward to visiting loved ones as soon as possible?

[Matt Hancock]

Subject to the results of the pilots, which are ongoing, we hope to allow testing in England to allow for visiting in care homes before Christmas. I will absolutely have another conversation with my opposite number Robin Swann, who is the Health Minister for Northern Ireland. Robin Swann is an excellent Health Minister, we work very closely together, and I am absolutely sure that together we will be able to make progress on testing and other matters. He and I are constantly in touch about how we can best serve the communities of Northern Ireland, from the position of the UK Government’s role in procuring tests around the world and, of course, his vital role in keeping people safe right across the Province.

DHSC Answers to Written Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Some might argue that it is the number of urgent questions we have allowed in order for debate.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

Openness and transparency around the sharing of data is key to ensuring that the public and the business community buy into the draconian measures that we have introduced in the fight against covid. I genuinely thank the Minister for his and the Department’s efforts in ensuring that we get timely information, but on 21 October, I asked the Health Secretary for data relating to positive cases among those who had not been in the UK 72 hours before their test, and I still have had no answer. Will the Minister agree to provide that data, which will be key to informing the full reopening of our airports, getting our airlines flying again and kickstarting our aviation sector and its supply chain?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. My understanding is that there are, I think, five outstanding written answers due to her, dating from November. She mentions one from October, so I will check whether that has been answered overnight. If not, I will go back to the Department and look into that particular written question.

Covid-19

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is now 293 days since the Secretary of State first came to this House and spoke about the emerging threat of covid-19. Since then, thousands of lives have been lost, both directly and indirectly, and billions of pounds have been spent. There has been great personal sacrifice, and we have all heard so many stories of individual courage and dedication that have been an inspiration, but there is no doubt that people are now weary. Not one corner of this isle or one aspect of our lives has been immune to the impact of this virus, so the news this week that there may be a way out of this nightmare has given people hope, and we all need hope at this difficult time.

However, that hope should not obscure the truth that we are in the midst of a second wave, so we must be sure to maintain vigilance. As we heard from the Minister, as of yesterday there were 20,000 new infections; more than 13,000 people are in hospital in England, with more patients in hospital in the north of England than there were at the peak of the first wave; and sadly, there were another 532 deaths yesterday, the highest number in one day for approximately six months. That is another 532 families who have lost a loved one, and among the huge numbers we talk about, we should never lose sight of the fact that each one of those numbers is a person. With the news today that we have now passed 50,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, we know that the scale of human loss has been immense.

Those figures remind us that we still have a long way to go. Hope for the future is important, but it is not guaranteed, and neither is the end likely to be reached before we enter the difficult winter months, during which it is sadly likely that more people will catch the virus and more will die. It is right that plans are now being made for the roll-out of the vaccine, but that should not mean we take our eye off the ball when it comes to the immediate and pressing challenges that this virus presents. I know that time is at a premium today, so I will not detain the House for too long, but I want to say a few words about some of those immediate challenges.

Every challenge in the NHS is faced, first and foremost, by its workforce, so I will start by paying tribute—as the Minister did—to everyone in the NHS: the doctors, the nurses, the many allied health professionals, the porters, and everyone who has gone above and beyond over these past nine months to keep the NHS going. We know that working in the NHS is never easy, but the pressure, the workload and the trauma this year are of a scale and intensity we have never seen before. Not only must we show our gratitude to those who have given their all, we must demonstrate that we are listening to them by addressing their well-documented and legitimate concerns. That has to be more than a clap or a badge: there has to be tangible recognition that there are only so many times people can go to the well before they become physically and mentally exhausted. It is clear that burn-out is a real risk, as 14 health unions and royal colleges have warned in their letter to the Prime Minister earlier this week. They say that asking staff to carry on at this level of intensity is “increasingly unrealistic”. We have to listen to that warning.

Addressing workforce fatigue is not just the right thing to do: it is the only thing to do if we want the NHS to continue to be the jewel in this nation’s crown. I hope that the rumours of another two-year pay freeze for NHS staff are just that—rumours—because if that were true, it would send the most appalling message about the value this Government place on the NHS workforce. When the Minister winds up the debate, I will be delighted if she could put that particular rumour to bed.

Of course, NHS staff should be properly rewarded for the work they do, but they also need to be properly supported when doing the job. We cannot have a repeat of the obscenity of doctors and nurses bringing in home-made PPE while UK manufacturers are selling it overseas. I know that general practice is particularly concerned about the availability of PPE this coming winter, and while many of these debates have rightly focused on the hospital-based issues that covid presents, we should not underestimate the demand there has been on GPs this year. We know it is always the case that, when general practice struggles, the impact is felt elsewhere in the NHS. It is not yet clear what role GPs will play in the roll-out of any vaccine, but any additional demands placed on them in that respect must be matched by additional support.

We welcome the news that at last, many months after we first suggested it, there will be routine testing of frontline NHS staff. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch report on the transmission of covid in hospital settings, which came out last month, stressed the importance of increasing pillar 1 testing capacity, and it is a matter of deep regret that we are only just starting to see that now. Let us hope that that pledge does not face the same problems with availability that we had in the social care sector.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I had hoped to speak in this debate but, unfortunately, there are limited flights to Belfast. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be additional testing in the care home sector, particularly for family members who could be designated as care workers? I know that the Minister brought forward a pilot scheme. Does the shadow Minister agree that that should be rolled out right across the United Kingdom and that loved ones should get access to their family members in the care home setting?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The recent developments in rapid testing give us the ideal opportunity to allow relatives of those in care homes to get in and see them and give them the support that they have been so sadly lacking in recent months. None of us could fail to be moved by the many representations we have had from family members who have been unable to see their loved ones for many months.

On the health and social care workforce, we know, sadly, that over 600 staff have lost their lives so far to covid-19. They have paid the ultimate price just for doing their job. It is important that lessons are learnt about how we stop transmission, and it is right that the Government opened up their life assurance scheme to all health and social care staff, but over half of all families who have lost someone to the virus have still not received their payment, so we need the Government to be much more proactive in making sure that everyone who is entitled to that payment receives it.

Let us support the staff, but let us not forget the impact on patients as well. We know that the NHS could cope with the first wave only because so many planned operations were cancelled. We know that the need to operate in a covid-secure environment presents additional challenges to the NHS in reaching previous levels of activity. We know that before the pandemic started, waiting lists were already climbing to record levels. Covid-19 has accelerated that increase so that by August this year, over 100,000 patients were waiting over a year just to start treatment. Cancer Research UK estimates that around 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and there were over 1.2 million patients waiting for a key diagnostic test at the end of August. We need to hear what the plans will be to address these spiralling waiting lists, and we need a cast-iron guarantee that no patient will be discharged from hospital into a care home if they have tested positive for covid-19.

I turn to what awaits us in a few weeks’ time, because we all hope that the current lockdown will end on 2 December as planned, and as promised, I believe, by the Prime Minister. If it does end on that date, it seems likely that we will still have some system of tiered restrictions moving forward. That is another area where we need to see improvements, because the Government’s approach to restrictions to date has at times been contradictory, muddled and rushed. I accept that the Government have had on occasions to move quickly, sometimes because of a rapidly changing picture—but sometimes, regrettably, because of leaks to the press too. Of course, we would not expect things in this kind of situation to be perfect, but they can be better than they have been.

The time that this lockdown buys us should be used not just to fix test and trace, to prepare for a roll-out of the vaccine and to fine-tune the mass testing pilots, but to set out a clear and consistent framework for determining and implementing future restrictions. The Minister and his colleagues have spent many Monday afternoons in Committee Rooms with me and others going through increasingly convoluted and amended statutory instruments dealing with each new restriction, often published only hours before they became law and always debated weeks after they came into force. We cannot go back to that style of governing. Public trust is eroded when decisions are not made in a transparent and timely manner, so when the Government decide what their exit strategy to the lockdown will be, they also need to consider what the process will be for making and communicating those decisions. It is critical that individuals and businesses get sufficient advance warning in future to enable them to prepare properly for whatever comes next. This point is as much about process as it is about substance, but the process matters, because restrictions need to be tested in this place; if they do not stand up to scrutiny here, we cannot expect them to stand up to scrutiny out there.

I want to say a few words about test, trace and isolate. The Serco side of the system is underperforming badly, and the decision to place responsibility for mass testing into the hands of local directors of public health is a welcome one. It recognises, perhaps belatedly, where the real expertise lies. The latest figures for the national test and trace system are frankly shocking, with 26% of test results received within 24 hours. We should not forget that the Prime Minister said we would have all results turned around in that timescale by the end of June, yet the figures have been getting worse in recent weeks, not better. We know how important it is for results to be turned around quickly if we are ever to get test and trace playing the part it was meant to play in controlling the spread of the virus. Ministers can boast about record capacity, but capacity is meaningless if the results are not coming back quickly enough to be effective.

Let me turn to the contact tracing system itself. In the most recent weeks for which figures are available, 40% of close contacts were not reached and asked to self-isolate, amounting to more than 130,000 people in one week. That is a failure. When every one of us in here has those difficult and distressing conversations with our constituents about the restrictions that we currently face, we need to reflect on that failure and question not only why these unproven private providers have been given the task in the first place, but why they continue to be responsible for a system that they are clearly not delivering on. Every scientific adviser said that relaxing lockdown measures would work only if we had an effective test and trace system in place, yet on just about every measure the system is going backwards. How much longer will Ministers tolerate this failure? However, whoever is doing the contact tracing, that is only half the story. Without people adhering to the rules of self-isolation thereafter, the success of the entire system is in doubt.

Yesterday Baroness Harding gave evidence to the joint inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee, and Health and Social Care Committee, where she made the important point that the reason that people were not self-isolating was that they could not afford the loss of income, not because of a refusal to comply. She also made the rather remarkable claim that the surge in cases that we have seen in the last couple of months was not anticipated, which I thought was an incredible admission.

The Committees also heard from Professor Sir John Bell, who said that the self-isolation system was “massively ineffective” and spoke about using the increased testing capacity perhaps to cut short the self-isolation period for negative cases. No doubt the Government are actively considering that, but we are still left with the need to do more to encourage people who test positive to self-isolate.

In September a report for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies concluded that self-isolation rates would be improved if additional financial support were available, ensuring that those required to self-isolate—let us not forget that these are people who are doing the right thing—are not penalised and do not experience financial hardship when doing so. This survey found that only 18% of people with symptoms self-isolated, and that figure went down to just 11% of those told to self-isolate by Test and Trace after coming into contact with a confirmed case. I know that these are preliminary figures and that other studies have suggested slightly higher levels of compliance, but no study that I have seen has shown levels anywhere near close enough to where they need to be for us to have an effective system.

The entitlement to a self-isolation payment is tied to being in receipt of certain benefits, which means that a significant number of people do not qualify, although those not in receipt of those benefits and those who do not receive contractual sick pay can also receive statutory sick pay or employment and support allowance. But that is frankly not good enough. SSP is far below the rate set for a self-isolation payment. The Secretary of State famously said that he could not live on such an amount, so we should not be surprised when we see low rates of compliance, because asking those who are not eligible for a self-isolation payment to accept a significant drop in their pay for a fortnight inevitably causes hardship and discourages compliance. I urge the Government seriously to consider doing more to encourage people to self-isolate.

It is a massive oversight that those notified through the app are not entitled to the payment. I understand that the Government are actively looking at this, but given that it is over six months since we started hearing talk about the world-beating app, it is staggering that we are only now looking at how properly to tie it in with support for self-isolation. Action on that issue cannot come soon enough.

There has been newspaper speculation that the actual period of self-isolation might be cut, with a suggestion that it could end at 10 days following a negative test. A report in The Guardian on Monday says that a compromise was “cooked up” to placate Dominic Cummings. Frankly, he ought to be the last person in government to be determining the self-isolation rules, given that he has found it impossible to follow them himself. Any change to this period should be based on medical advice, so I do hope that we get clarity from the Government during the wind-ups that any decisions on shortening the self-isolation period will be based on advice from the chief medical officer, rather than any Dom, Dick or Harry who happens to be in the Prime Minister’s office.

I hope that those on the Government Benches have been listening today and considered the issues and the suggestions that I have made, as none of us wants to be back here in another month or two debating another lockdown because the time this lockdown has bought was wasted. We do not want to be here talking about how the second wave saw us with one of the highest death rates in the world again, and we do not want to be here in a few months’ time seeing cases rising again because demand was not anticipated. We all want to hear that cases are falling, that hospital admissions are reducing, and that other NHS patients are getting their treatments quicker. Human endeavour has given us the opportunity to get to that place. While reaching that destination is not entirely within the Government’s gift, it would be inexcusable if we failed to get there because of incompetence or neglect on the Government’s part. The people would never forgive that, and nor should they.