Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Whately

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

Yes, I do share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for helping his constituents to access jobs and for cycling as a way of getting to and from work. At the spending review we announced £710 million of new funding for schemes like the one he described, but Bolton is also receiving £30 million through the towns fund and the shared prosperity fund, and work on the electrification of the Wigan-Bolton line has begun, supporting economic growth for his constituency and the wide area.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

In the integrated rail plan announced just six months ago, the Government promised to invest in the east coast main line—a vital route connecting London, Newcastle and Scotland and bringing high-skill, high-wage jobs to our area. However, Ministers are already backtracking on some of these investment promises in other parts of the country, so will the Government make a firm commitment today to fund the delivery of east coast upgrades to provide much-needed confidence and resilience in our line?

[Helen Whately]

As the hon. Lady points out, with our investment in infrastructure—particularly rail, in the £96 billion integrated rail plan for the midlands and the north—we are showing how the Government are supporting the growth of the economy, including through providing the transport infrastructure that we need for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Whately

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his hard work to secure the £37.5 million town deal for Southport, which will be truly transformative for his constituents. That funding will bring in more private investment to his constituency, building on public funding and providing new jobs and opportunities for his constituents. It will be levelling up in action.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The stark reality in the north-east is that we have seen rising child poverty and reliance on food banks in recent years, and the poorest households lost £1,000 when the Government cut universal credit in the autumn. Rising prices look set to take away another £1,000 from households, before the economic impact of what is happening in Ukraine. Ahead of the spending statement next week, may I urge the Treasury please to do more to tackle the destitution that will be inevitable if nothing is done to intervene to support households in the north-east, who will then support the local economy to grow?

[Helen Whately]

As other Ministers have outlined, we are supporting households with the rising cost of living, including a package worth £21 billion of support. In particular we are supporting those on universal credit by reducing the taper rate to ensure that work pays. Looking further ahead, through our commitment to levelling up we are investing across the country in skills and infrastructure, with the levelling-up fund to improve growth, boost prosperity, opportunities and pay, and thereby improve people’s standard of living.

Social Care Reform

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Whately

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for his involvement on the Health and Social Care Committee, whose reports I find really helpful; they provide great insight and contribute to the conversation. He alludes to the different models for paying for social care, and clearly there are many different approaches. We have been considering them, but I am not able to go into detail here and now. I will have to ask him to wait until we publish our proposals for social care reform.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

This pandemic has starkly demonstrated the unequal footing of social care alongside the NHS in this country. The Prime Minister’s announcement back in 2019 that he had a social care plan ready to go has been clearly shown to be untrue, and according to Age UK, 1.5 million older people are going without the care they need. People living in areas with a low council tax base, such as Newcastle, have seen their local council tax precepts rise because the Government have shifted the burden of paying for social care on to those who can least afford it. I agree with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), that the time for excuses is over, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary stop making empty promises so that we can start building much-needed cross-party consensus on this issue without any further delay?

[Helen Whately]

We are working on our proposals for social care reform, and we are working across the sector. As I have said, I am already talking to and meeting those across the sector—care providers, representatives and, in fact, users of the care and carers themselves. This is complex. There are reasons why there have been discussions about this for many years without proposals for reform being brought forward. We are hugely ambitious, and we want to get it right. That is why I make no apologies that we are taking some time, but as we have said, we will be bringing forward our proposals for reform later this year.

HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND, NORTH EAST AND NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND AND OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS (ENGLAND) ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Whately

Monday 19th October 2020 General Committees

[Helen Whately]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I will indeed cite the evidence that we have on the level of compliance with self-isolation later.

The regulations also recognise the importance of employers respecting self-isolation requirements. No employer should prevent an employee from self-isolating or encourage or put pressure on them not to do so. Where an employer is found to be in breach of that obligation, they face a fine. That is in line with fines for other employer covid-19 breaches. Employees who need to self-isolate must also inform their employers of their legal requirement to do so, and a fixed fine of £50 is set for employees who do not inform their employer. There is a clear reciprocal duty between employees and employers about self-isolation, which supports both the opportunity and motivation to comply.

We recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an individual may need to break their self-isolation; for instance, if they are unsafe or if emergency assistance is needed. In those cases, the legal duty would not apply and individuals would not face a penalty. The regulations specify the circumstances in which breaking self-isolation would be permitted.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I am aware of situations where employees are very afraid of losing their job if they have to self-isolate. They are not necessarily able to access any sick pay or Government support. What messaging are the Government putting out to employers to make sure that they understand their obligations towards their employees? What can an employee do where they fear that they will lose their job if they do the right thing and self-isolate?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the role of employers as well as that of employees. Communications have been going out to make sure that people are aware of the importance of self-isolating. I may be able to offer something more specific about the communications to employers when I respond to the debate. There is financial support now in place because we found out from research that the financial impact of self-isolation was one reason that some people failed to do so.

[Helen Whately]

I know that that point has been raised throughout the pandemic, and there will be reasons why parents, for example, will have extra childcare responsibilities. We had that challenge during the full lockdown, when schools were closed other than for the children of key workers, and we know that employers did everything they could to be understanding and support their employees. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether anything further can be done.

To set out the rationale behind the regulations we are discussing, the headline point is their importance in our overall strategy to combat covid-19. Clearly, the number of people testing positive has risen sharply and, indeed, is still increasing. That is not only among younger people; worryingly, we are seeing increasing rates among the over-60s, particularly in parts of the country that have higher rates overall. Hand in hand with the increasing number of cases, we are seeing a higher percentage of people testing positive and increasing rates of hospital admission, again particularly in areas where the case rates are highest.

Against that backdrop of increasing rates, we heard that, unfortunately, compliance with the restrictions has not been what it should be. To answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, general population surveys conducted between March and August showed that self-reported self-isolation compliance was relatively low. For instance, only around 20% of the population reported that they fully complied with self-isolation if they had symptoms or were identified as a contact. That is evidence of the challenge with self-isolation compliance at that time.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister will recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike between encouraging compliance and discouraging engagement with the system —not being tested and not reporting symptoms in order to avoid the consequences of not being able to self-isolate. Have the Government analysed the potentially worrying consequence that increasing the penalties may disincentivise doing the right thing from a health perspective?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We would not want to disincentivise anyone from coming forward to get tested or sharing their contacts, because that is such an important part of controlling this virus. On the other hand, if the data shows that compliance is low, which it does, then what actions can we take? First, we ensure that people really know what action they should be taking—that they should get tested, share their contacts and ensure that their contacts know that they should be isolating. Secondly, we provide people with more support to enable them to isolate. Thirdly, we make self-isolation a legal requirement, which communicates both the seriousness of isolating and the fact that if someone does not self-isolate when they test positive or are a contact, they could be putting other people’s lives at risk. Ultimately, if something is serious, there is a penalty associated with it. Those three things need to go together, particularly the understanding of the importance of taking the responsible course of action and self-isolating if necessary.

By making self-isolation a legal duty enforced through penalties for non-compliance, our aim is to ensure that people who have tested positive for covid-19 and those who have been directly exposed to the virus recognise the importance of self-isolating in order to reduce transmission and actually do isolate. SAGE has advised that ensuring infected individuals and their close contacts isolate is one of our most powerful tools for controlling the spread of the virus, so now is the time to introduce this measure and to combat the rising incidence.

The regulations were introduced using emergency powers so that we could respond quickly to the increasing threat to public health posed by covid-19. The urgency in this case arises from the increasing rate of diagnosed positive cases at the time of making the measures. The self-isolation SI came into force on 28 September 2020. It will be reviewed before the end of the six-month period and will expire 12 months after coming fully into force. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care keeps their necessity under consideration between the formal review points, too.

The regulations demonstrate our willingness to take action where we need to. That said, we are committed to ensure that the measures are only in place for as long as necessary. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Meningitis B Vaccine

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Whately

Monday 25th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Whately]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour in Maidstone. I know she has been contacted by many of her constituents about this issue. We need to ensure that the formula used to calculate whether the vaccine should be introduced includes things such as peace of mind and the level of fear about meningitis. It should also take into account the public preference for protecting children from illness.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. My understanding—I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify this in her response—is that in calculating the cost-effectiveness of the meningitis B vaccination, the JCVI has not fully considered the potential outcome for those children who contract meningitis but survive and the long-term costs for them and their families for the rest of their lives. Such costs are often borne by the state, so, along with the factors that the hon. Lady is outlining, there are other financial costs that have perhaps not been considered fully.

[Helen Whately]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. We may well hear from the Minister that some of those extra costs have been taken into account, but when the Select Committee took evidence a few weeks ago we heard from the Meningitis Research Foundation and others that the cost-effectiveness model tends to privilege near-term costs over long-term costs and benefits. It does not look at the long-term lifetime health impacts, positive or negative, from a person having had or not had meningitis.

That brings me to something called the discount rate, which is applied at 3.5%. I have been told that, as a result of that discount rate, the benefits of a vaccine reach zero by the time somebody is 27. People clearly live for much longer than that, so is enough account being taken of the long-term benefits of a vaccination programme when cost-effectiveness is calculated? For instance, it has been calculated that if a 1.5% discount rate were used instead of the 3.5% rate, the answer would be different and a catch-up programme for under-fives would be cost-effective. The NICE guidance states that a 1.5% discount rate can be applied if health benefits would be attained over long periods and for public health interventions. Surely vaccinations should fall under those categories?