Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This Bill has not had the benefit of being discussed previously, but I think it is a very important issue and I am delighted that we have the opportunity to give it a bit of airtime.

Regulatory impact assessments lie at the core, or should lie at the core, of policymaking and public legislation. If the tool if a regulatory impact assessment is not properly applied, the quality of the legislation suffers. We have seen a large number of examples of that. Perhaps one of the most telling is that we have legislated for net zero without ever really going through the full implications of what it will entail. I have the privilege of serving on the Environmental Audit Committee. It is willing to discuss almost everything on the environment, but it is not prepared to engage in an inquiry into an audit of the costs and benefits of net zero. The Government should have introduced an audit of the costs and benefits of net zero before the legislation was passed. The same is true of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is also true of HS2. There was never a proper cost-benefit analysis regulatory impact assessment of HS2.

More recently, the Renters (Reform) Bill—which I see, much to my horror, is having its Second Reading on Monday—was published in May. It was the subject of severe criticism by the Regulatory Policy Committee because no proper impact assessment was produced at the time the Bill was introduced. It was introduced by Ministers who had not gone through the process of thinking through the implications of what they were doing. That is what the Bill before us is about. I had the privilege of being a Minister for six years or so—some time ago now, Madam Deputy Speaker—and it was very important, when introducing legislation, to think about the implications and consequences. That should be done in the first instance internally by Ministers with officials before it is exposed to public debate. A well organised regulatory policy framework should ensure that that is what happens.

The Bill is based on the fact that, too frequently, that is not what happens. Even more frequently recently than in the past, the requirement for impact assessments to be produced prior to a Bill being published has not been complied with. The consequences, to which I have referred, are that Bills come forward that are badly formulated and unnecessarily contentious. Was it not extraordinary that two or three weeks back, we had a statutory instrument in relation to the implementation of the Windsor framework? The Windsor framework agreement was back in spring. We were told that there had been insufficient time for the Government to produce an impact assessment of its contents. How ridiculous is that?

The Bill basically says that we have rules in place, but there is no point in having a command without a sanction. Clause 1 sets out in plain language a requirement that the

“Government must, on or before the appointed day, lay before Parliament a qualifying regulatory impact assessment for—

(a) any Bill introduced to Parliament by a Minister;

(b) any draft statutory instrument laid before Parliament by a Minister that may not be made unless it is laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; and

(c) any statutory instrument made by a Minister and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

Clause 2 is the sanction:

“If His Majesty’s Government fails to comply with the duty under section 1, subsection (2) applies.”

We cannot have a proposal requiring that the Minister be locked up, suspended from the House or whatever, so I did the best I could, which is basically to say that the Minister would be embarrassed into action. That embarrassment will require the Minister responsible for the Bill or the statutory instrument in question to

“make a statement to the relevant House…as soon as reasonably practicable, and…on every third sitting day until a qualifying regulatory impact assessment has been laid before Parliament.”

If that had happened in relation to the Renters (Reform) Bill, we would not be where we are now, with a totally inadequate impact assessment that has been produced late and much amended; at one stage it was given the red pencil treatment.

My Bill would enable this House, and the Members of this House who take legislation seriously, to be properly informed. Quite often, it is impossible to get answers to questions about Bills; there are questions that should have been raised during the impact assessment process, but have not been raised; and Ministers are ignorant of the implications of what they are doing. That is why I suggest that this is a sensible way forward. I do not often say this in relation to a Bill of mine, but I cannot see why anybody would be against it—except a Minister who does not want to comply with the normal rules. This is a short Bill, but I think it would be revolutionary in improving the quality of legislation.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

This is not written into the Bill, but if the cost-benefit analysis in a Minister’s impact assessment shows that the cost outweighs the benefit, what does my hon. Friend feel should happen as a result? He will remember that when the Labour Government introduced the Bill that became the Climate Change Act 2008, they had done an impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. By their own admission, the costs were twice as big as the benefits, yet they pressed on with the Bill anyway. Is my hon. Friend saying that where the costs outweigh the benefits the Government should do something about it, or is it enough just to publish the analysis?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think it is sufficient to publish it. It is then for Members of Parliament to look at what it contains, including the costs. My hon. Friend and I were two of the five people who voted against the Climate Change Bill on Third Reading. Why did we vote against it? Because we could see that the costs would far outweigh the benefits. We had read the impact assessments—well, I cannot remember reading them at the time, I must say, but I had the very strong feeling that we were entering unknown territory and the costs would be very significant. I am not saying that we should not bring forward legislation when the costs are greater than the benefits; I am saying that Members of Parliament should be able to take responsibility and say to Ministers, “Why are you bringing forward legislation whose costs will be far greater than the benefits?”

This debate takes place just after the Government have changed the rules on business impact targets, the provision on which has been repealed. Despite the Government’s policy of zero increase in the total costs of regulation on business in this Parliament, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which is responsible for looking at better regulation, has stated:

“When combined with the figures for the previous two years, the total increase for the parliament to date is £14.3 billion.”

That was in February 2023; I think there has since been an update. Having said that they would not increase the costs on business in this Parliament, and that we would have better regulation and an independent scrutiny process for holding them to account on that, the Government have found themselves on the wrong side of their own rules—so what have they done? They have decided to change the rules. They are now saying that for the last period, they will no longer calculate the cost of Government regulation to business.

If one starts with from a cynical viewpoint, one becomes even more sceptical after looking at the detail. I do not think that, at heart, the Government really want to be held to account by the House for their measures. They would much prefer measures to be nodded through with no questions to be answered: they would like everyone to be nodding donkeys. However, if that is not the Government’s view, I hope they will accept the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill. In the light of recent experience, it seems to be an excellent idea. It gives Parliament more power to scrutinise what is going on. A Conservative Government surely, above all, is about low taxes and deregulation, but unfortunately—maybe for reasons beyond our control, and we all know what those reasons are—we have had too many taxes and too much regulation. I will not deal in detail with the whole covid saga, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) has dealt with that powerfully, but the fact is that we all now know that there should have been far more consideration within Government of not just regulatory impact but every other kind of impact.

In terms of ensuring scrutiny of Government, we have the other place, and it does its job. We should be very wary of meddling with the structure of that place, because it seems to be able to scrutinise legislation more effectively than we do in this House. In recent weeks and months, I have been particularly involved with a lack of impact assessments in terms of my own constituency. If we look at all the borders Bills and the recently passed Illegal Migration Bill, we can see that some sort of impact assessment would have been very useful in determining whether that Bill was going to achieve what it set out to. I am particularly interested in how illegal migrants are going to be dealt with when they arrive on these shores, whether or not the Government win their Supreme Court case. There is an understanding that they will be illegal and that they will be detained, but the Government have now determined that they are going to send 2,000 illegal migrants to the former RAF Scampton base in my constituency. We are still awaiting any clear idea of when they will arrive.

Have serious impact assessments been carried out on the pollution levels that naturally remain at this base, which was originally the home of the Dambusters, for a long time was used by Vulcan aeroplanes carrying nuclear bombs and was used latterly by the Red Arrows? Surely there should be a proper, published impact assessment of environmental pollution and of security arrangements.

Apparently, these 2,000 migrants will not be detained and will be able to come and go, so what is the security impact on the 700 residents who live there? Interestingly, Scampton Parish Council has put in a freedom of information request to the Home Office about a community impact assessment, but the FOI request has been turned down by the Government. Astonishingly—the House will be amazed at this language coming out of government— it was turned down with the excuse that the Government need to have, “A clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which it can debate matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public political debate.” That is a reply to Scampton Parish Council, which is only trying to do its job; 700 people have put their life savings into buying a house on this base and the Government say that they need a clear space free from public scrutiny. The Minister who is sitting on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), knows all about this issue because he went through all this with a proposed migrant camp in his constituency, which is not now happening because it was a victim of the Conservative leadership campaign.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend explain what he has just said?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not go further into former grief.

We are simply saying that, when it comes to housing illegal migrants, it should be done on the basis of, for instance, value for money. We have conclusively proved that, because there has not been any properly published impact assessment, it will cost the taxpayer more money to put migrants into the former RAF base at Scampton than to put them into hotels, because a 2-mile long runway has to be maintained and there are 100 buildings, many of them listed, including the office of Guy Gibson and the ones relating to the Dambusters. I have made the point about the impact on the local community.

I believe in transparent government and what I fear about this whole RAF Scampton episode is that this is not being done to save money or to look after migrants properly—obviously, it is not in their interest to have 2,000 migrants in one place, overwhelming local social services, the police and everybody else. It is being done because the Government simply want to make the statement, “Sadly, we have not managed to stop these people coming over in boats and therefore we are going to put them in former military bases, rather than in hotels.” But of course this has no deterrent value at all. We cannot do an impact assessment on what is going on in the minds of people fleeing various hellholes in the world, but I can tell the House one thing: someone fleeing Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan is not going to be deterred from coming to these shores because they might end up in a comfortable room in a former RAF base. So this provides no value for money or deterrence, there are worries about security, pollution and community impact, and no assessment has been made, yet the Government just carry on.

The worst thing is that I keep emailing, writing to or texting Ministers, but I never get a serious response. The parish council and West Lindsey District Council are treated with contempt and given generic replies. As the environmental enforcement authority, West Lindsey District Council put a stop notice on the Home Office a few weeks ago, and the Home Office simply ignored it and carried on working, presumably because it thinks the land is Crown land. If the Home Office were a private sector employer, it would be taken to court and made to pay huge fines, but the Government think they can get away with it.

My constituents and I are victims of a lack of candour by the Government—a lack of proper impact assessments in a variety of fields. We have seen that with the whole covid saga, of course, and above all, we have seen it with High Speed 2. We need not go on about HS2, but it is probably the biggest waste of public money that any Government have ever indulged in. It is ludicrously over-engineered and we are still facing the consequences of it. For years, I have been arguing for us to have a through train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through Market Rasen and Lincoln to London, which would cost £1 million. I have been told, “No, no, there’s no money, but we’re quite happy as a Government to spend £100 billion on HS2.”

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not going to go on and on about this, but I will give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not want my right hon. Friend to go on and on about HS2, but does he agree that one of the issues now is that there is no impact assessment of the revised proposals, and there has not even been a fresh instruction to the Committee of this House that is dealing with it?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Above all, there has been no impact assessment for the poor people living north of Birmingham who live on the line, whose farms have been taken and who have perhaps been forced to give up a place that they have farmed for generations.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is just amazing how we walked into this disaster: how no one questioned why HS2 was so ludicrously over-engineered, with the trains running far faster than they do on the continent, for instance.

Before I end, I want to deal with a matter very close to where we are now standing: this building. The whole restoration and renewal saga of Parliament is an HS2 in bricks and mortar. There has never been any proper assessment of what we have been doing. I sat on the sponsor board and I have been dealing with this matter in various Committees for years. I am now on the programme board, which reports directly to Mr Speaker. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been sunk into making ever more complex and over-engineered plans for restoring and renewing this building. We should just have got on with it six years ago, but we still have not come to a final decision.

We are meeting on Tuesday—yet another meeting in which we are going to be asked, believe it or not, whether we should have a full decant. I have been arguing about this for years. We are still talking about going to Richmond House, if the House of Commons ever voted for a full decant, which is totally unsuitable. We would have to rip out the courtyard and knock down bits of a listed building. There would be years of argument, another public inquiry and more delays. This decant will not affect anybody who is now sitting in the House of Commons. It will not happen for years, but still we are returning to the same arguments. The delivery authority keeps returning to this; it keeps saying that it is cheaper, more cost-effective, and all the rest of it to have the full decant. However, we have got on with repairing Speaker’s House and Elizabeth Tower, and we are going to work on Victoria Tower. We should just get on with the work.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the R and R issue. This week, there was a meeting of the Procedure Committee to which representatives came along and in response to questions they told us that, if there was to be a complete decant, it would probably take between five and seven years to build the building into which the decant would go, so the works could not begin until 2029 at the earliest.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, what I hate so much in politics is that people are so casual with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. I loathe that attitude. If it was their own affairs in dealing with restoration and renewal, they would just get on with the job. They would get various estimates and do what was necessary—the minimum necessary—to make this building safe. But because it is public money, we set up committees and create these huge bodies such as the one running HS2 and the one running R and R, with people paid huge salaries and making endless, over-engineered plans. It is frankly disgraceful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I am not entirely sure that that necessarily follows, and I will give another example as to why.

I should say in passing that I cannot for the life of me understand why any Minister would not want to do a cost-benefit analysis of any proposal they were bringing forward. It seems to me extraordinary that a Minister would want to bring forward a proposal and not say, “Can somebody do a cost-benefit analysis of this, or an impact assessment?” Why on earth they would not want to do that Lord only knows, but that is a slightly different point. My point is this: what benefit does it have for the decision-making process?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Before my hon. Friend goes on to his next example, may I say that there is no reason why an impact assessment should not look at the behavioural consequences of a particular policy measure? One of my gripes has been that the Renters (Reform) Bill does not give any account of its consequences for reducing the number of people who will be making their houses and homes available to let.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree wholeheartedly. That is why, as I say, for the life of me I cannot see why a Minister would not want to do that impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

If I have to choose between the Minister and my wife, I know who I am going to agree with, and the Minister is on a loser here. Unusually for me, there might be a compromise option, which is that a cost-benefit analysis should be done, but it may not necessarily need to be done before the original decision is made. Perhaps that could be a fair compromise and be considered subsequently.

I want to come back to the reason why what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said earlier might not flow, though it logically should. She said that if we have a cost-benefit analysis, MPs can scrutinise things and make sensible decisions on whatever. I guess in an ideal world that would happen, but it seems to me that in the real world that does not happen. The House should not just take my word for it, because it did not happen during the passing of the Climate Change Act 2008.

As I touched on briefly in my intervention, when the Labour Government brought forward the Climate Change Bill, they did a cost-benefit analysis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have urged them to do. These were not meaningless numbers—we were talking serious money, and literally hundreds of billions of pounds were in the credit and debit columns on this cost-benefit analysis. It was not one with a few hundred thousand here or a few million there.

The Labour Government at the time brought forward the Climate Change Bill with a cost-benefit analysis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have wanted. The original impact assessment showed that the potential costs of introducing the Climate Change Bill were almost twice the maximum benefits, as calculated by the Government who were bringing forward the legislation. One would think that when a Government bring forward a Bill where the potential costs are twice as high as the maximum benefits, Members of Parliament would be fighting over themselves to vote it down. How on earth could anybody support such a ridiculous notion, let alone why a Government would bring forward such a Bill? However, on Second Reading just five MPs voted against it, when a cost-benefit analysis showed it was a non-starter.

What then happened was that Lord Lilley—at that time he was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—kicked up a fuss. I must add that during the passage of the Bill the potential cost barely came up—none of the Front Benchers from any party raised the cost, even though it was going to be hundreds of billions of pounds. However, Lord Lilley seized on the fact that the costs were twice the benefits and asked how on earth that could be, so the Government went away with a flea in their ear. But—would you believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—they came back having recalculated the cost-benefit analysis and having discovered hundreds of billions of pounds of new benefits that they had not identified when the Bill started its passage through this place. It was miraculous that they found hundreds of billions of pounds of benefits that they had not even thought about.

Either we should believe they were utterly incompetent and had not fully thought through the implications of their Bill before they brought it forward, or, if we are more cynical—I probably fall into that camp—we might believe they redid the figures and came back with some dodgy figures to make it look as if the Bill had a greater benefit than cost.

I am not sure the Bill succeeds on any level. The Climate Change Act 2008 showed me two things. First, the Government will come back with any figures they want just to prove there is a bigger benefit than cost, even if that is dubious, to say the least. Secondly, Members of Parliament are not even interested in cost-benefit analysis. If they were, more than five of us would have voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I am not being funny, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if you go into the voting Lobby and ask people what we are voting on, half the time they do not know, let alone know the cost-benefit analysis of what they are voting on, so I am not sure that a cost-benefit analysis would serve the purpose that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch thinks it would. Therefore, I think the Climate Change Act 2008 represents an argument against his Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was absolutely right to mention a third Bill, which was about HS2. Everybody has known for years that HS2 was a catastrophic waste of money that was not even intended to benefit the north. History has been rewritten to say that it was going to be some great thing to benefit the north. The last Labour Government envisaged HS2 in order to try to reduce short-haul flights from Leeds Bradford and Manchester airports to Heathrow. It was never intended to benefit the north—that was not the purpose of HS2. History was rewritten and if we listen to Andy Burnham it was going to be the saviour of the north. What an absolute load of tripe. The cost went up and up. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, it went from £37 billion until it eventually got to £180 billion, and pretty much all the people who were arguing for it when it was £37 billion were still arguing for it when it was £180 billion.

In many regards, the only person to have a sensible approach to HS2, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, has been the Prime Minister. He said, not unreasonably, that he supported HS2 when the cost was £37 billion, but he could not support it when the cost reached £180 billion. That is a sensible decision for somebody to make, having looked at a cost-benefit analysis. The Leader of the Opposition will not be interested in a cost-benefit analysis—he opposed HS2 when it was £37 billion and supported it when it was £180 billion. How on earth are we expected to make sense of that? The decision making is absolutely ludicrous.

Politicians do not tend to make logical or financially sensible decisions; they make political decisions. They are not really interested in the cost-benefit analysis. They are interested in what it might look like in a headline in a paper, or in a campaign in a by-election. In many respects, the reason why HS2 goes against what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve here is that actually the Government had done a cost-benefit analysis of HS2. They just kept it quiet, because it did not deliver what people wanted it to deliver. Andrew Gilligan, who was the transport adviser when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, revealed that, even before the latest increase in cost, the Treasury’s cost-benefit analysis had shown that for every pound spent on HS2, it would deliver only a 90p return. Although that was the Government’s official cost-benefit analysis, they were still pressing ahead with it at the time, until the costs became even more astronomical.

Although my hon. Friend is right that cost-benefit analyses should be at the forefront of decision making by Government and by Members of Parliament when they are scrutinising legislation, I just wonder, really and truly, how often people care that much about it. I can only conclude that they do not really care that much at all.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Going back to the HS2 example, I was one of those supporting the objectors who wanted more of the track to go in tunnels. I was supporting them because I thought that it would push up the costs so much that the project would become unviable. That never materialised. Essentially, though, is my hon. Friend not arguing for additional impact assessments during the course of the project?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is highlighting how shrewd a politician he is and what shrewd decision-making skills he has. Ultimately, he was successful in getting the project stopped, but I cannot speculate on whether that was due to the number of tunnels. However, perhaps he helped, and more power to his elbow, because in places like Shipley we support the Prime Minister in wanting better connectivity across the north. The bit that works is north to south; it is across the north that it does not work, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to focus his money on that. Whether it was down to the cost of the tunnels, I do not know, but it cannot have done much harm.

Finally, the other element of the Bill that I am nervous about, even though it is logical, is how much extra power it gives to what my hon. Friend described in a previous debate today as “the blob”. If we were to be, in effect, governed by cost-benefit analyses in the way that he envisages and in the way that I would like things to be done, I do not think that it is beyond anybody’s imagination that the civil service would, if it was particularly keen on the Government adopting a policy, miraculously produce figures that showed a tremendous benefit and not much of a cost. I am pretty sure that it is not beyond people’s imagination to think that, were the blob, as he described it earlier, particularly determined to block a proposal from the Government, its advice to the Government would be that the cost far exceeded the benefit. I am rather nervous about giving civil servants more power over Government decisions than they already have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We are not going to relitigate the entire pandemic here, but it is very important to say that the Opposition’s position was to support the Government in trying to get on top of the pandemic. I think it is fair to say that, while we did that, we were concerned there was not always the evidence to support some of the Government’s policies. We took it on trust that they had those conversations with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and so on, but again, I think those things—the level of detail and the consideration taken before recommendations came forward—will come out during the inquiries.

To pick up on another point from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommendations, it said:

“Our concern is that the number of qualifying instruments which have not followed the IA”—

impact assessment—

“procedure has increased and, given that no sanctions appear to be applied where a department fails to comply, there would seem to be little incentive for departments to improve.”

Obviously, the Bill would create an incentive in the sense of bringing a Minister here every three days to answer for the lack of an impact assessment when one is not produced. As much as I enjoy seeing the Minister, I do not think it would be a particularly good use of parliamentary time to have him come here every three days to explain why an impact assessment had not been prepared. It would probably create an unnecessary pressure to produce one in a rushed manner that might not actually be fit for purpose. On that point, the Minister referred to the Regulatory Policy Committee, which does a kind of audit of impact assessments. It has said itself that around a quarter of all impact assessments are not fit for purpose. If we are to rely on the RPC for approval of the way impact assessments are delivered, we ought to listen to its recommendations a little bit more. They are not always as glowing as we would like.

I will not detain the House any longer, but some important points have been raised.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On the hon. Member’s last point, if he accepts that the system is not working, what does he think should be the sanction for failing to ensure that it does work?

[Justin Madders]

The answer lies in Members’ own hands. It is up to Parliament itself to object to or vote against legislation if it does not think the impact assessments support the policy direction. The powers have always been there. Members can turn up to any secondary legislation Committee if they wish to. I understand the thrust of what the hon. Member is saying with this private Member’s Bill, but I am not quite sure it is the right method to deliver it. What needs to happen is for the Government to instil from day one a commitment to evidence-based decision making. There have, I am afraid, been too many examples recently where that has not happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This has been an excellent debate, and I thank everybody who has participated in it. In the Minister we have somebody who actually believes in his brief, and it is refreshing to hear him bring his knowledge and experience to this important subject. It was also interesting to hear the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) make it clear that the Labour party supports this as an important tool in ensuring that we have proper scrutiny and good legislation.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for dwelling on the amendment of the Public Health Act, and the abuse of power to which that gave rise. I will finish in a moment with a quote from Lord Sumption, who has a phrase that encapsulates our concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke eloquently about the problems he has at Scampton. On the basis of what he said, I am almost prepared to come along with my banner and help him to persuade the Government to relent and allow his constituents to continue as they have been.

My right hon. Friend made a good point about restoration and renewal, which made me think about a question I asked at the Procedure Committee about how, when the cost-benefit analysis is done, we are going to evaluate the benefit to our democracy of having the House of Commons continuing to sit within the Palace of Westminster and not being decanted. The answer I got was that that is not something they can do. All they can do is tell us what various options will cost, but they are not prepared to evaluate the benefits of staying in this Palace and not decanting. That is an example of the issue that we have.

That was expanded on by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who as always brought an independent mind to these debates. He gave me a nightmare by reminding me of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the extent of that legislation. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we were in opposition at the time. The leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron, felt so strongly about it that those of us who voted against it—my hon. Friend and I, along with Peter Lilley, Ann Widdecombe and Andrew Tyrie—have never been forgiven by him. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Tyrie was told expressly by David Cameron that, as a result of his voting against that Bill’s Third Reading, he would never have office on the Front Bench either in opposition or in government under his leadership. That is the pressure that MPs are often up against in having an independent mind and not being a nodding donkey.

I finish by quoting from “Canary in a Covid World: How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our (My) World”, in which Lord Sumption reminds us in an essay that

“Governments have immense powers, not just in the field of public health but generally. These powers have existed for many years. Their existence has been tolerable in a liberal democracy only because of a culture of restraint…which made it unthinkable that they should be used in a despotic manner.”

In a sense, that is what this debate is all about—trying to constrain the natural tendency of the Government to want to behave in a despotic manner. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an issue that will continue to be of interest to hon. Members, so I would like to see whether we can adjourn the debate.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Mr Mohindra.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.

New Covid Variants: Government Preparedness

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I rise to address this Government’s preparedness for new covid-19 variants and other biological threats. Based on past experience, it is fair to say I am yet to be convinced that this Government are making the necessary progress in this regard. I will first address the Government’s culture before moving on to extant concerns specific to pandemic preparedness.

Hindsight is of value only if we are prepared to use the lessons it reveals to ensure that the same mistakes or misjudgments are not repeated. When it comes to calamity and loss, vindication brings only a bitter taste, not solace or comfort. For those of us in this place, and beyond, who voiced genuinely held concerns about the UK Government’s response to the pandemic, yesterday’s evidence to the covid inquiry from the former Health Secretary is unlikely to elicit any sense of schadenfreude—just a deep sense of despair and sadness.

The former Health Secretary’s testimony does not reflect well on those experts who allegedly gave him deeply flawed advice but, ultimately, he accepted that he alone carried ministerial responsibility for the “calamitous state of affairs” not only in his Department but in the agencies that reported to him, as Secretary of State. In short, he admitted that, when courage called, he failed to execute the responsibilities of his office. He is, of course, correct, but his apology rings hollow and does nothing to ameliorate the damage caused.

My abiding memory of the pandemic is the former Health Secretary’s all-too-frequent glib responses from the Dispatch Box to questions intended to be helpful and constructive. I could devote further commentary to his shocking testimony, but I suggest that might be better served by a Privileges Committee inquiry or other serious investigation.

The shutting down of dissenting voices was all too commonplace, and not just in this place. Innova, the beneficiary of lucrative lateral flow test contracts, put pressure on The Scotsman for daring to publish my valid criticism of the reliability of its tests. Despite scrupulously evidencing my assertions, with the support of esteemed academics, the editorial team could not withstand the very deep pockets that Innova had, on the back of billions of pounds of public money spent on its devices.

In addition, pressure was applied to academic and clinical staff who raised concerns about the adequacy of the UK Government’s pandemic response. Although I readily give my thanks to those staff for their ongoing encouragement and support, I am unable to name them, such is my concern that we are not yet out of the woods in terms of truth and reconciliation on these matters. That such a culture was allowed to flourish at a time of grave emergency is detestable.

Although it is clear that the UK Government must change, I see few earnest attempts to do so. I have asked too many questions on these matters to count, and I have led and contributed to multiple debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, but much of that was for naught. Concerns went ignored and commitments were readily discarded, even by those few souls who maintained a position during the ministerial churn from Prime Minister to Prime Minister to Prime Minister. This may seem tangential to the matter at hand, but Government culture is central to organisational learning for future preparedness. In its basic form, the management of any infection is not rocket science, but each strand is necessarily interdependent and must be rigorous in both design and application. The continued failure to understand that fundamental relationship will fatally undermine any strategic future planning.

In essence, robust surveillance and detection should lead to prompt isolation of the threat, followed by the administration of safe and effective treatments, and supported measures, with further screening and surveillance repeated until the threat is managed. Get any step of that process wrong and the risk quickly spirals out of control. Relying on detection and isolation alone will not work. As we know only too well, an over-reliance on vaccination in the absence of robust surveillance is, similarly, a fool’s errand.

A recent briefing from the House of Commons Library set out the ambitions of the UK Health Security Agency and its Centre for Pandemic Preparedness. The CPP aims to ensure the UK’s future pandemic responses are effective and efficient, and that they reduce the negative impacts of health threats. The CCP aims to become the world-leading hub for all aspects of pandemic preparedness. In addition, the briefing notes that the HSA is working in partnership with the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to turbocharge efforts to combat global pandemics and emerging health threats. Those are grand claims, grandiose perhaps, but the question remains: what does this mean in the practice of disease management and control?

In my Adjournment debate on the UK diagnostics industry in May last year, I voiced my concerns about the UK’s lack of preparedness for a future pandemic strategy, whereas economies the world over were developing 10-year strategies for the same. I applaud the efforts of the HSA in conceptualising a detailed report and a tentative timeline to execute a 10-year science strategy. It emphasises transforming surveillance through genomic identification and characterisation of new covid-19 variants, and promoting the use of innovative diagnostics, which are promising steps in the direction I indicated last year.

However, there are still clamant concerns to be addressed on the implementation of this plan and the efficacy of the HSA as an institution to deliver on those ambitions. First, the partnerships section on page 31 of the strategy report that a

“10-year strategic collaboration with Moderna will ensure we are better prepared against future pandemic threats, including through an onshore mRNA Innovation and Technology Centre.”

What is the basis of this “focused partnership” between the HSA and this single specific pharmaceutical company and a single specific vaccine technology? Recalling the Valneva vaccine production debacle and the adverse impact it had on the Scottish based company, may I ask what the rationale is behind such a partnership, as opposed to a more diffuse and cost-effective approach?

During a Westminster Hall debate in January 2022 I raised concerns about the UK Government’s overemphasis on vaccination as the sole plank of their policy, noting that even with the vaccine success delivered by Dame Kate Bingham, they had placed all their eggs in the mRNA basket. That was, and still is, short-sighted. The Valneva vaccine was the only adjuvanted, inactivated, whole-virus vaccine technology, yet the UK Government pulled the contract just before the phase 3 results were published. They demonstrated that the vaccine was highly effective and safe. That makes it abundantly clear that Scotland does have the potential to lead the way for the world in the domain of innovation and vaccine strategy for pandemic preparedness, yet we are continually and systematically impeded by the UK Government in that ambition.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence in trying to hold the Government to account on this subject. He refers to the culture, particularly in the Department of Health and Social Care, of keeping things to themselves, playing cards close to their chest, not having regulatory impact assessments and, in effect, as he says, imposing good ideas on the basis of heroic assumptions that are not being tested. May I encourage him to carry on his good work?

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention and warm words. I take them in good grace. He makes an important point. Assertations were made throughout the pandemic that things were one way and, despite interrogation, any understanding that they could not possibly be that way was continually denied. That was very frustrating, and I thank him for his encouragement.

In November 2021, Dame Kate Bingham called the decision to cancel the Valneva contract “inexplicable”. Do the UK Government still not get that? Why are they still not listening to the one person who came through the pandemic with their reputation enhanced, because she did the job she was tasked to do and did it well?

The British Society for Immunology has told me that it supports the use of all vaccine technologies where they have proved safe and effective in clinical trials, stating that a broad portfolio of vaccines is important as we move forward in providing protection against future variants. It also notes that mRNA vaccines were deployed first as they were the first vaccines to be approved. However, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has since approved the use of eight different covid-19 vaccines that utilise a variety of technologies, including mRNA, viral vector, whole virus and protein-based platforms. What is the Government’s strategy to harness the power of all technologies, considering their intended partnership with Moderna?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

There are several ways, and I did try to set some of them out. As I said, UKHSA tests samples from covid-positive patients around the country every week and does genomic sequencing to identify new variants or variants of concern.

We are not currently doing international border checks, but we are working with international partners, so should a new variant emerge in another country, we can step up that capability. We introduced border controls on new arrivals a couple of months ago due to the risk of a new variant from China, but that was stepped down because testing showed that there was no risk to the general population. Waste water testing is also still available should it be required, so there is a range of testing capabilities to identify variants of concern and respond quite quickly.

Moving on to vaccines, we are developing mRNA capability, but not just in covid-19 vaccinations. That is one way of delivering covid vaccinations, but that capability is also being used for respiratory illnesses and cancer vaccination trials. There is the potential for that technology to be used in a range of vaccines, not just for covid-19. A range of different vaccines are available, and should a variant of concern or change of variant emerge, we will take advice from the JCVI as to which vaccine is best to use and which group of the population is best to vaccinate. That is an ongoing piece of work.

On some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points, the covid inquiry is obviously ongoing. As the Minister responsible for pandemic preparedness, I am keen to learn the lessons about testing capability, PPE, and vulnerable groups that may need greater protection in future pandemics. But we also need to be live to the fact that a pathogen could emerge that is completely different from covid, flu, or avian flu, which we are also monitoring actively. We need to be nimble in our response to any future pandemic. My concern is that we may just look at covid as the only future threat, but that is absolutely not our policy; we are looking at a wide range of threats, both in the UK and abroad.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Minister referred to mRNA technology. Are the Government absolutely convinced that the technology is safe and effective? Are they in danger of putting all their eggs into that particular basket?

[Maria Caulfield]

We are certainly not putting all our eggs in the mRNA basket for covid, or for any other use of mRNA technology. Such vaccines must still pass the MHRA assessment in order to be licensed for use. As mRNA technology develops for other clinical conditions, whether cancer or respiratory illnesses, those vaccines will also have to be awarded a licence by the MHRA. It is not the case that mRNA vaccines are given carte blanche because they have been used in covid; they will have to pass the necessary research hurdles to gain licences for future use. We are certainly not just relying on mRNA for covid—although it has been effective and the technology means that it can react to variants and be altered depending on the variant. We are using other vaccines for covid, and working with other partners. I reassure my hon. Friend on that.

I am very happy to continue updating Members on the progress that we are making and any future booster vaccination programmes for covid-19 that will be running, and to update the House on the work of UKHSA regarding monitoring, surveillance, and future testing capabilities.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I welcome to the Front Bench the Minister who will respond to the debate, with whom I had a meeting earlier today. During the course of that meeting, she kindly agreed to come to an early meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which I have the privilege of chairing. At that meeting we will have representatives of victims of vaccine damage. However, as I emphasised to my hon. Friend, we will not have people there who are actively engaged in litigation, because that would be inappropriate.

This debate is about the application of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to those who have been bereaved or suffered adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines. The Act was extended to apply to such vaccines before they were rolled out, but it is now abundantly clear that the Act is totally inadequate for addressing the needs of most of those who have been adversely affected.

On Wednesday this week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright):

“We are taking steps to reform vaccine damage payment schemes, by modernising the operations and providing more timely outcomes”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]

The Prime Minister did not answer or even refer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s requests that the Government should change the £120,000 maximum payment for those seriously injured and end the denial of any payment to those disabled by less than 60%. That was despite the Prime Minister having received notice of my right hon. and learned Friend’s question, and the fact that both he and I had raised the same points with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care weeks ago.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. Has he had time to consider the paper produced this week by the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, which found a strongly significant correlation between covid-19 vaccine uptake in 2021 and excess deaths in the first nine months of 2022 across the European Union and the European economic area? In fact, the correlation was so strong that it could be stated that for every 1% increase in vaccination rates in 2021, there was a 0.1% increase in mortality in 2022.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I did notice that document, because it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend. May I suggest to him that he tries to engage the good offices of our right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee? I am delighted to see him in his place this afternoon, because I know that this issue is close to his heart as well.

The Minister confirmed to me earlier that the Government’s answer to both those questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam put to the Prime Minister is no. It is rather sad that that is so, and it is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not put that on the record himself.

This month, we have already discussed in this House the scandal surrounding the supply of contaminated blood and the false imprisonment of postmasters as a result of the Horizon system. In both cases, after long resistance, the Government were eventually forced into accepting compensation schemes. If they are interested in tackling the developing scandal over covid-19 vaccine damage victims, they can and must act now.

I fear, however, that the Government have no will so to do, because they are still in denial about the whole issue. Why do I use that expression? I do so because at a meeting on 21 April last year, I asked the then vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), whether she accepted that some people had died as a direct result of having received the covid-19 vaccination. She declined to answer the question at the meeting and said that she would write to me. She did not do so, so I then had to put down a parliamentary written question—UIN 2325. She ducked that question.

I will therefore ask the same question again to the Minister today, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), bearing in mind that we now know that more than 50 coroners’ verdicts have confirmed that people have died as a direct result of covid-19 vaccines, and that her Department has been making awards under the 1979 Act to families who have been bereaved on the basis that their loved ones died as a direct result. Will the Government therefore unequivocally say today that they do accept that some people have died as a direct result of having received a covid-19 vaccination?

Was it not bizarre that all the Prime Minister could say on Wednesday, when told about Jamie Scott spending four weeks in a coma and remaining seriously disabled as a result of a covid vaccine, was:

“I am very sorry to hear about the case”?

Then, in an extraordinary non sequitur, the Prime Minister added:

“In the extremely rare case of a potential injury from a vaccine covered by the scheme, a one-off payment can be awarded.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]

However, Jamie Scott’s injury is not a potential injury, but a real and substantial one. Nor was it caused by any old vaccine; it was caused by a new experimental covid vaccine.

Sadly, Jamie Scott’s case is not unique. I have received hundreds of distressing letters and emails from both victims and bereaved relatives, who are desperate for the Government and the NHS to listen. Several are from my own constituency. I will quote briefly from one letter, received on 18 March, from a 24-year-old, previously employed in a good job in financial services. He had a Pfizer vaccine booster in February 2022 and says:

“Within days of the dose, I started experiencing nasty symptoms that resembled those of an autoimmune disease. The symptoms include nausea, headaches, skin rashes and other immune issues. Despite numerous Doctors visits, blood tests, X-rays and medicinal prescriptions, Doctors have been unable to help ease symptoms at all. Symptoms have worsened with time and I have been unable to work over the past seven months or so. I have been unable to receive any disability benefits and have been left to use my entire life savings to fund my food and bills.”

An expert rheumatologist has now confirmed the link between my constituent’s symptoms and the Pfizer vaccine. My constituent asks me—and I, in turn, ask the Minister—will the Government admit that there are cases where these vaccines have caused reactions in people? Will they promise to provide further support and research funding for how these conditions can be managed and, hopefully, resolved?

My constituent is but one of so many who have suffered, and continue to suffer, because they did the right thing, on the advice of the Government, and received their jabs. The Express, the first mainstream newspaper to start giving the issue some publicity, began its crusade for justice for jab victims with four pages in one of its editions last week. On 15 March, its leading article, entitled “Injection of faith needed”, spoke for many when it said: “We must take care of the small number of people who suffered side effects as a result of their jabs. Innocent people who have suffered terribly must not be denied the damages they deserve. This is a matter of justice.”

The current situation is that over 4,000 claims have been made under the 1979 Act. Over the past five months, new claims have been running at the rate of 250 per month. Some 2,800 claims remain outstanding, and only a surprisingly and disturbingly small number have so far been successful. I shall now try to shame the Government into action by contrasting their head-in-the-sand approach to vaccine damage victims with what is happening in Germany.

On 12 March, Professor Dr Karl Lauterbach, Germany’s Federal Minister for Health, gave a disarmingly candid interview to the Germany TV news channel ZDF. The Minister is a scientist and physician of note, and had previously been professor of health economics and epidemiology at the University of Cologne and at Harvard. As the adviser to then Chancellor Angela Merkel at the beginning of the covid pandemic, he took a very hard line and publicly said on numerous occasions that the vaccines must be taken and that they were “without side effects”. He has now admitted in that interview that what he said about them being “without side effects” was a gross exaggeration. That is disarmingly frank, is it not?

He conceded that one in 10,000 of those vaccinated against covid-19 in Germany had experienced severe adverse effects. He described these “unfortunate cases” as heartbreaking, confirming that some of the severe disablements will be permanent. He added, “It’s really tragic”. The Minister said that Germany does not yet have drugs for treatment and that care entitlements are defined very narrowly, but he recognised the need to get faster at recognising vaccine injuries as the understanding of adverse events increases. He promised significant extra resources and said that he was in discussions with German Treasury Ministers to address issues around post-vaccine syndrome.

Sadly, our own Government do not even recognise post-vaccine syndrome. I have asked them whether they would report on what has been happening in University Hospital Marburg in Germany, where much work is being done on the diagnosis and treatment of post-vaccination syndrome. I suggested that it might be useful for them to have some discussions with the hospital. In answer to a parliamentary written question on 16 November—UIN 88798—I was told that there are

“no current plans to do so.”

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that position, because it is important that we should get into alignment with Germany, whose health system is much more successful than our own. Germany has moved from wanting to get everybody vaccinated, although that was all done “voluntarily”, to recognising now that it must do its best to look after those for whom the vaccine was bad news.

What has happened over the past two years in Germany is that more than 300,000 cases of vaccine side-effects have accumulated in the Ministry’s own system, and more and more people are lodging compensation claims against the state, which, based on the contracts that Germany signed with the EU manufacturers, is liable for any vaccine-related damage. Meanwhile, the subject of vaccine injuries has begun to be openly discussed in the German mainstream media. Let us hope that we will see a bit of that developing in our own country, because one of the frustrations of the victims of these vaccines is that there seems to be much reluctance in the mainstream media to engage on this issue.

Now we have a situation in which the German Federal Minister of Health is saying, “let’s see if we can get some help from the pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily help compensate those harmed by the vaccines.” He then goes on to say that that is because the profits have been “exorbitant”. Just a year ago, he had said that the pharmaceutical companies would not get rich on the vaccines, but it is one of the privileges of Ministers across the world to be able to eat their words when the facts change.

In my submission, the Government here need to completely change their approach and become much more realistic, accommodating and, dare one say it, compassionate towards those who did the right thing by the public interest and accepted the vaccines.

May I ask my hon. Friend a whole series of questions? It will not be possible for people to follow all of the questions I want to ask, because I do not have time to read out all of them. Are the Government aware of the 2017 case in the Court of Appeal where the Court said that, for VDPS purposes, loss of faculties had no real relationship to the kind of injuries set out in schedule 2 of the relevant statute relating to calculating the percentage of disablement? Schedule 2 calculates physical disability—for example, an amputation below the knee could be calculated at 60%. The Court decision was that that should not be some kind of straitjacket, but it seems that it is being used as a kind of straitjacket in the assessment of covid vaccine claims.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are following the decision made by the Court of Appeal? Will she also reconsider the amount of the £120,000 payment? Its value has been eroded by inflation since 2007. Can she explain why there are still no plans to align the disablement threshold for the VDPS with that in the England infected blood support scheme, under which it is possible to get £100,000 without any evidence of disability? There does not seem to be any alignment between that scheme and the VDPS.

The Government said that within 56 days of receiving any prevention of future deaths report from a coroner, they would report back on it. The only such report made to the Government relating to this issue was delivered on 13 October. Will my hon. Friend explain why there has still not been a response? In the light of what is happening in Germany, will she agree to set up specialist clinics to look at post-vaccine situations? How many people are now working on vaccine claims, and does she see any prospect of the enormous backlog being reduced quickly?

There are lots of questions there, but they are only a small sample of those that I have. I look forward to members of the APPG raising further questions with the Minister when she comes to our meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I am happy to write to the MHRA to get a response for the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I hope he will be reassured that the Government are investing in research on vaccine safety both at the University of Liverpool and at the National Institute for Health and Care Research, because we want to reassure people about the safety of vaccines.

On the VDPS, I want to reassure those making claims that the Government want to support them through the process. I have not touched on it much in my response, but I am keen to reassure those who feel they have suffered and who are struggling to get healthcare for their symptoms that we are looking at this.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

As I understand it, the Minister’s time will be up at eight minutes past 3, so can she now explain whether the Government will accept that post-vaccine syndrome is clinically recognised? Will she divert resources specifically to that issue?

[Maria Caulfield]

I am not going to commit to that specific point on the Floor of the House, but I will commit to this: if people who feel that they have symptoms from the vaccine—that includes a range of symptoms—are struggling to get the healthcare they need, when I come to the APPG I will want to look at the sort of symptoms they are experiencing and help them to get the care and support that they are struggling to get at the moment. It is the same with long covid: there is such a range of symptoms. What we have found in setting up specific long covid clinics is that they have not always been able to cover the wide range of symptoms that people have had. I am very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend at the APPG.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend refers to long covid clinics, but people who are suffering from the consequences of vaccine damage feel that they are being treated differentially and in an inferior way. If we have clinics for long covid, why do we not have clinics for post-vaccine syndrome?

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend. The point I was trying to make is that we have set up long covid clinics, but they have not always addressed the needs of those who are suffering long covid, because they have such a wide variety of symptoms. What I can say to those who feel that they have experienced side effects from the vaccine is that I am very happy to meet them, hear about those symptoms and see what more we can do to support them in getting the care and services that they find they are struggling to access at the moment. I just want to reassure my hon. Friend that I have taken his points seriously—we do not have our head in the sand. I am very happy to meet the all-party parliamentary group and those who are concerned about their experience.

We will continue to prioritise improving the operations of the VDPS: six months is the average time taken, but ideally we want to make it quicker and more efficient for those who put in a claim. We are working alongside the BSA team, who are doing an amazing job to turn around so many claims as quickly as possible within the limits of getting notes and access to information from a variety of sources. That is often challenging, particularly when there are different computer systems and some paper notes are still in operation across healthcare settings. They have a very tough job, but they are trying to do it as speedily as possible by modernising and scaling up operations to improve the experience for those who are claiming, as well as helping those who want to make a claim.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

We will be setting out further steps shortly, but there are 6.5% more dentists doing work for the NHS than in 2010 and we have started the reforms with more units of dental activity bands and a minimum UDA.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that about one third of the activity that takes place in GP surgeries could be transferred to pharmacies? What is he doing to promote that policy and deal with the British Medical Association’s reluctance to co-operate?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a number of services that GPs currently offer could be performed by pharmacists, and we are looking at that in the context of the primary care recovery plan. This is also about looking at how we can relieve some of the workload pressure within primary care, and that is why we have recruited 25,000 additional staff to support GPs. It is also why we have over 2,000 more doctors in primary care.

Children's Mental Health Services: Lincolnshire

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) for securing this debate and for the way he continues to champion children’s mental health services. I recently discussed many of the issues with him and some of his constituents. The experience that they brought to me has helped to influence the work we are doing. I reassure my hon. Friend that there is a huge focus on improving children’s mental health services, both nationally in terms of funding and, as he indicated, in terms of staffing. In his local area, much of the work will be in the major conditions strategy, which includes mental health, and also in our suicide prevention strategy—[Interruption.]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House, so the sitting is suspended. If there is one vote, it will be for 15 minutes; if there are two votes, it will be for 25; and if there are three votes, as expected, it will be for 35 minutes. I look forward to seeing Members back here then.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

The Minister will now resume her speech.

[Maria Caulfield]

Thank you, Sir Christopher, for allowing me to continue what I was setting out to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who has been campaigning so eloquently on the issue of children’s mental health, particularly from a constituency point of view. He is quite correct that we are investing record levels of funding into children’s mental health services. We are trying to recruit as many staff as possible to expand those services, which are being extended to support children’s mental health. I will touch on how that is happening, both at a local level in Lincolnshire and nationally across England.

Lincolnshire’s children and young people’s mental health services have always been rated as outstanding by the Care Quality Commission. Pre-pandemic, the average wait for child and adolescent mental health services assessments was 4.4 weeks, and the Healthy Minds Lincolnshire early-intervention service helped to reduce referrals to child and adolescent mental health services by 5%. Lincolnshire has always had an excellent track record in delivering services and supporting young people in particular with their mental health, compared with the figures nationally. I know that is not necessarily much consolation for those parents and children waiting for services, but Lincolnshire mental health services have traditionally been very good.

However, the pandemic has had an impact, as it has across the country. In Lincolnshire, referrals to CAMHS have increased by 15.7%; nationally, the increase was 35%. Although Lincolnshire has not had the same increase in the number of referrals as other parts of the country, it has still had a significant increase. Lincolnshire has had 15% more clinical contacts than the national average, and 92% of children who sought an emergency telephone response received one within four hours as a result. We can see, then, the scale of the pressures that services are facing. Lincolnshire has performed relatively well compared with most other parts of the country but is experiencing challenges. That was very much the point that my hon. Friend made: his constituents are now struggling with waiting times, the sheer scale of the number of referrals is putting pressure on the service, and although a lot of work is going on to improve things, his constituents are feeling the pressures on the service.

The loss of workers in this field is particularly high in my hon. Friend’s area, as it is in other parts of the country. I assure him that we are recruiting more staff, but it takes time to train them up and get them providing services at a local level. Lincolnshire does not have a children’s and young persons’ in-patient unit, and I have heard from his constituents about the impact of that and the difficulty of a child being placed out of area. We fully recognise that and want to work with his local team on it. His local integrated care board is standing up to the challenge—it has increased funding to CAMHS by £1.2 million in this financial year to help to reduce waiting times, which has had a positive impact—but the workforce is probably the single biggest issue in terms of trying to improve services further.

By September of last year, 67% of children and young people who were assessed for CAMHS were assessed within six weeks. If early-intervention and emotional services are included, 72.5% of young people who were assessed were assessed within four weeks, with the national average being 68%. The big concern for Lincolnshire is the length of time that children are waiting for support and the workforce capacity to change that, so I am committed to working with my hon. Friend’s ICB to see how we can address that concern.

My hon. Friend touched on the out-of-hours service. Such services are available throughout the country—there are 24/7 helplines available—but he is quite right that many people do not know how to access those services, and that applies in respect of emergency services as well. We hear from ambulance trusts throughout the country that very often ambulances have to attend to someone with a mental health crisis, and they are not always able to access a 24/7 service. It is not because it is not there but because sometimes it just not clear how it can be accessed. There is, then, a lot of work to do.

Let me reassure my hon. Friend about what we are doing from a national perspective; this will be replicated in Lincolnshire. We are on course to deliver 399 mental health support teams in schools and colleges, and we already have 287 of them in place. They are making a significant difference to children and teachers. They are able to support children who have mental health concerns, mental illnesses or conditions at an earlier stage and get young children into the system much more quickly, before they reach a crisis point, to get them the help and support they need. They also take the pressure off teachers, who until now have done a significant amount of the heavy lifting when it comes to children’s mental health.

We are providing £79 million to boost capacity in children’s mental health services and to help 22,500 more children and young people to access those services. Also, we are specifically expanding access to services that address eating disorders. The funding has increased significantly to try to match our level of ambition, with £53 million of support in 2021-22, which will rise to £54 million in the forthcoming financial year. All that work sits on top of record levels of investment in NHS mental health services in England and the unlocking of support for an extra 345,000 children and young people.

I recognise from the points that my hon. Friend made that where we are making a difference that is great, but for the children and parents who are waiting it is still very difficult. Although Lincolnshire is probably performing better than most parts of England, it is facing some significant pressures with workforce capacity and the lack of an in-patient facility, which also puts pressure on community services.

The Government hope to reform the Mental Health Act 1983 fairly soon. That will support mental health services and make them much more community and crisis team-led, rather than letting people get into crisis and their needing much more extensive services. We have recently announced our major conditions strategy, which includes mental health, and we will also publish our national suicide prevention strategy, in which we will focus on children and young people in particular, because we recognise that significant work needs to be done for them.

It is also about ensuring that we have the workforce capacity in place. The Chancellor and his team will specifically include mental health in the workforce strategy, which is being worked on. We know that when we expand community services to get people seen much more quickly and avoid crisis situations, we will absolutely need the workforce at a community level to meet the demand.

I hope I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend. The Government recognise that there are challenges, particularly with things such as out-of-hours support and rapid access into services. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing by constantly raising the situations his constituents face, because it does make a difference. It means that we are able to assess whether we are making progress in supporting not only children and young people in particular but everyone who wants to improve their mental health or has a mental illness and is in need of support.

Our ambition is that children and young people, wherever they are from in England, whatever their background and whatever their mental health condition, will be able to get the support that they need in a timely manner. I know that my hon. Friend will be holding our feet to the fire to make sure that that happens, particularly in Lincolnshire.

Question put and agreed to.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Because the Minister responding to the next debate is not present, I have to suspend the sitting until 5.7 pm. We will then have one hour in which to debate the next motion.