Cass Review
Dawn Butler Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins
This is not about my emotions, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I was disgusted and angry. What is more, this is about being able to have conversations in our public space. For example, if our public institutions—whether it is the NHS, schools or whatever—are asked to respond to a thoughtful and careful review such as the Cass report, they must do so, because this information does not belong to them; it belongs to their patients, to future patients—because we want to shape services to help them—and to us as a nation. I welcome such institutions’ about-turn in deciding that they will provide the data. I am pleased that has happened, but my goodness me, I wish they had done it earlier.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
All trans children and young people deserve access to high-quality and timely healthcare and support. Around 100 studies have not been included in the Cass report, and we need to know why. The Secretary of State is obviously not concerned about the way that the Cass report has been used to perpetuate a broader hostile environment towards trans people in the UK—a hostile environment created in part by the Government’s delay in reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Misrepresenting the report, and the high-and-mighty attitude from the Secretary of State, helps no one. Will she commit to the extra funding needed to help young people have a holistic approach to their healthcare pathway?
Victoria Atkins
I am not clear whether the hon. Lady supports the report or is castigating it; I have no idea whether she supports it or not. We are trying to use the evidence in this very thorough and thoughtful review, in the words of her Front-Bench spokesman, to help clinicians treat our young people and children in a compassionate, caring way. I have noticed, and have had it reported to me by others who have been watching, that certain campaigners are trying to build up a head of steam to say that the report is somehow flawed. It is not. This is superb evidence, and the NHS has assured us that it will act on it.
Government PPE Contracts
Dawn Butler Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend captures the mood of the public. They want answers—they want to know what happened to their money and what happened with these contracts at the time they most needed the Government to act responsibly—so we have tabled today’s motion and will put it to a vote.
Let me be clear. We are not asking the Government to do anything that would undermine any chance of recovering our money or anything that would conflict with any police investigation, but for 10 months they have told us that they are in mediation. What progress has been made? When will they conclude that the mediation has failed and take action? Can they actually get our money back or are they just kicking the can down the road?
Our motion asks Ministers to hand the records over to the Public Accounts Committee—a body that this House relies on to hold them to account for public spending—because the only logical conclusion is that they do indeed have something to hide. The public deserve answers on whether the dodgy lobbying at the heart of this scandal played a part in how vast sums of taxpayers’ cash have been wasted and whether shameful profiteering has been enabled by this Government.
That leads me to my second simple question for the House today: will Conservative Members—the few who are in—now vote for a clean-up or for yet another cover-up? Just last week, the Government led Tory Members in the other place through the Not Content Lobby to block amendment 72 to their Procurement Bill, which would have banned VIP lanes in future procurement decisions. They voted it down. They voted to protect unlawful VIP access instead of protecting taxpayers’ money.
The Prime Minister, fresh from writing off the billions he carelessly lost to covid fraud, is peddling legislation full of loopholes that would give Tory Ministers free rein to do it all over again. The question for the House is whether to act to prevent a repeat. Today, I say to Conservative right hon. and hon. Members: “Learn your lesson. Don’t let this shameful episode be repeated.”
The loss and trauma of the pandemic were immense. Millions of families lost loved ones—some only got to say goodbye via an iPad as mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and friends slipped away—and then we learned that throughout that trauma, companies with WhatsApp links to Ministers were given special VIP access to contracts that have seen billions poured down the drain.
This Government have done untold damage to the public’s faith in politics. The first step in restoring trust is publishing these documents today. The public need answers about how this happened and they need them now, but they also deserve reassurances that it will never, ever be allowed to happen again. Taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backroom deals to cronies or used as a passport to profiteering.
PPE Medpro is just the tip of the iceberg in this scandal. We now know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract. We now know that many did not go through the so-called eight-stage process of due diligence, as Ministers have now admitted, and we now know that this left dozens of experienced British businesses out in the cold—businesses that had the expertise to procure PPE and ventilators precisely and fast; businesses that offered their help in our darkest hour; businesses whose only mistake was to play by the rules.
Not a single one of the companies referred to the VIP lane was referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—the Cabinet member who oversaw the entire emergency procurement programme —reportedly fast-tracked a bid from one of his own personal friends and donors, who went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. Last week, he said he had simply referred the bid from PPE Medpro to officials; but we also know that he passed it on directly to his ministerial colleague Lord Agnew.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech which puts every Conservative Member to shame. Is she as shocked as I was to learn that a company was put into the VIP lane by mistake, and still received a £1 million contract?
Will Quince
I am keen not to get into a political slanging match on this point, but my hon. Friend is right that all Members on both sides of the House were receiving multiple emails from people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, were panicking because they wanted to ensure that we procured PPE as quickly as possible.
Colleagues across Government and beyond worked day and night, taking tough decisions, to keep our country safe. Those efforts secured billions of items.
Will Quince
I have given way equally to both sides so far in this debate. I have some reluctance to give way to Members who tell others to sit down while they are speaking or making interventions.
Will Quince
I said I will, and I will.
The efforts of civil servants secured billions of items and, by June 2020, we had obtained 30,000 ventilators and delivered more than 17.5 billion items of PPE to protect frontline workers. What does this mean in practice? It means that we were able to keep our NHS open throughout the pandemic; emergency operations went ahead; and once some of the toughest restrictions were eased, relatives could visit their loved ones in and around care homes.
Dawn Butler
I want to take the Minister back to where he mentioned civil servants. According to the Government’s own records, civil servants were begging Ministers not to give contracts to some of these companies because they had red flags and they were overcharging the Government—we are talking about almost double the price they agreed to be paid. This was an extra cost of £50 million to taxpayers. Civil servants were begging the Government not to act in the corrupt manner that they did.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for that response, and I know the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will soon begin that dialogue with her.
Will Quince
I have given way to the hon. Lady once already, as I promised I would, and I have been generous with my time, so I will not give way again.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I have a few points for the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is no longer in his place. The National Audit Office did not have all the paperwork it needed to give a full and correct report. Therefore, when the Minister kept quoting the National Audit Office saying that due diligence was done on all companies, that is not correct. Also, the NHS published weekly consumption data during the pandemic, so the question is: how on earth did we come to buy five times more PPE than we actually needed? It makes no sense. There is a lot of evidence and paperwork on the Good Law Project website, just for the Minister’s reference.
The coronavirus pandemic has been a nightmare for everyone. It was a time of national pain and loss, and for some it was unspeakable. People lost loved ones, as I did, and it was also financially damaging for the country. It is absolutely shocking and unforgivable that some people saw this crisis as an opportunity to seriously line their own pockets, making money out of the misery we all went through. Let us be clear: this money is not free money. This money comes from working people through taxation, and the Government have been pickpocketing the working class to fund the lifestyle of the rich.
We still do not know the true extent of the misuse of public money, and that is why this motion is important. Even though I and many others have been asking questions for three years, what comes back from the Government is really quite sparse. We are having to piece together the information, and that is not good enough from a Government. They need to be transparent and honest, and the public deserve to know who was given public funds, how many had links to the Conservatives and what they were paid for. I often ask, “What were they paid for? What kind of PPE? How many, and how many did we receive?” The Minister never comes back with that information, so if the Minister has the facts and figures, broken down for each company, I would appreciate if he put that in the Library. According to the Minister last week, some companies were paid for PPE even though we had enough PPE in stock. I said, “Was that deliberate?” and he said yes. I think that is really quite strange—if we have enough PPE, why are you giving people more PPE?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The hon. Member claims that we bought five times too much PPE. This is not the case. We did have 20% excess capacity against a worst-case scenario that, thankfully, did not materialise. But just to be clear to her, it is not the case, as she keeps saying, that we bought five times too much PPE. That is simply not the case.
Dawn Butler
I thank the Minister for that intervention. So can he just clarify: if the NHS was given weekly stats on how much PPE was needed, how come there is so much PPE in storage, which is costing £750,000 a day to store? Does the Minister want to come back? Oh, the Minister of State has walked in at the right time.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister of State did actually give the House some updated figures on that point. It is not the £750,000 figure the hon. Member just quoted. On this point, it is not the case that we bought five times too much PPE. She keeps saying that. It is not the case.
Dawn Butler
I suppose the facts will reveal themselves when the Minister shows us all the paperwork, leaves it in the Library and then we can go through the facts, the stats and the figures together. I look forward to that. We heard earlier today—[Interruption.] The Ministers are going through some figures now. I really think that, to resolve all of this, and to not even have this debate and conversation, they should put all the paperwork in the Library, we can all go through it together and that is what is needed.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and she has spoken with incredible experience and heart on this subject throughout the last few years. Does she agree it is particularly galling that we are seeing the former Health Secretary write a book, the “Pandemic Diaries”, yet we are not able to scrutinise the facts and evidence of the decisions that were taken not just about the public’s money but about public safety?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I spoke in Committee this morning. I am not going to read the book but I think we have to scrutinise it and cross-check the information that the Minister gave in Committee against what is in the book. The new Ministers who have come into post should be a little more humble, because what has happened is shocking. The cronyism and the corruption that has happened in the Government in plain sight is truly shocking. The Government are now spending £10 million burning PPE. It is like they are burning the evidence—we wonder why. [Interruption.] Sorry, the Minister said that I have just criticised the Minister for storing PPE. He is right. I would not want the Minister to spend nearly £1 million every day storing PPE. I also do not want him to burn PPE. He should be using the PPE—give it to people who are travelling on the tube. We are having a flu epidemic and it will help to resolve that, so don’t heckle me when this is your responsibility—[Interruption.] I mean the Minister. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are incompetent as well as corrupt and it is not just cronyism. The situation is so ridiculous—[Interruption.] Am I not allowed to call it what it is, Madam Deputy Speaker? It smells like corruption to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Lady to say “incompetent”, but I would be grateful if she would find another form of words, rather than saying “corrupt”.
Dawn Butler
This is so ridiculous, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Netflix series comes out, nobody is going to believe it is a true story. I know we are not supposed to speak about the Conservative peer too much, but we learn today that they are taking leave of absence from the Lords. I am not saying this in jest, but I hope she is not on her yacht trying to do a runner because a lot of money has gone missing. In a previous Minister’s own words, he was being “bullied” into giving this contract—[Interruption.] No, I don’t feel sorry for him, but he was being bullied. Two Ministers were being bullied, so it is important that we investigate the VIP lane.
As I said earlier, the National Audit Office said that companies were put there by mistake and were still given millions of pounds. Surely that shows us that due diligence was not done; the company was there by mistake. How did it get all that money? When the Minister gets to his feet, could he tell the House how many of these companies existed before the pandemic? If he cannot, of course, we look forward to that information being available in the Library or when this motion passes today, which I hope it does.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we all know that the VIP lane was a bit dodgy—that is just a fact and on record—but this has all come to light not because Parliament managed to force the Government to reveal everything that happened, but because a bank reported unusual activity and dropped a certain person and her husband in fear of reputational damage. That is what has brought this particular scandal to light and the National Crime Agency has now investigated.
As others have said, this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. The Serious Fraud office is also investigating contracts won by another company, Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd, which paid a whopping £20 million fee to a middleman, Surbjit Shergill, who worked for Samir Jassal. Together, they had a hotline to the then Prime Minister’s special adviser, Munira Mirza. We also know—we have seen the emails—that they were helped by the right hon. Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Witham (Priti Patel).
If a company has to go through due diligence and believes that it is participating in a proper process, why would it agree to pay a politically connected middleman £20 million? That does not make any sense. If everybody is treated the same, there would be no need to pay somebody £20 million to move up the list. As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot say the word “corruption” —I am trying to think of other words; hopefully more will come to me and I will use them—but it feels very much like cash for covid contracts. What happened to that money is a mystery. The Serious Fraud Office continues to investigate the case 18 months after it was referred.
I could speak about so many more cases. For those who are interested, there is a thread on my Twitter account about some of the other companies where there are huge questions to be answered. The Government need to open up their books and ensure that there is proper scrutiny. Yes, of course we accept that mistakes were made and that some of them were unavoidable, but the Department of Health and Social Care did not do the fraud checks that it was supposed to do; we had to push it, and that did not come out until a whole year later. There has been negligence, but there has also been something a little more sinister happening in Government.
Those people who stole money from the public purse during a national crisis should be ashamed. They should not say, “I was doing it for the country” as they are not when they are pocketing millions of pounds. It is not patriotic; it is a word that you are not happy with me using, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those people took the money unlawfully, really—they were helped by Government Ministers—and they will have had plenty of interest payments from their ill-gotten gains. Now is the time, during the cost of living crisis, to give that money back. That includes the donations given to the Tory party by those people who had a bung from the covid crisis—they need to come back into the public purse.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will have to put on a time limit of four minutes.
Public Health
Dawn Butler Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
Throughout today’s debate, we have heard the sincere and heartfelt views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I recognise the strength of feeling, and will turn to each of the statutory instruments for consideration before the House, but before I do, may I recognise the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front Bench?
We are learning more about the omicron variant each day, but we already know that no variant of covid-19 has spread this quickly. It will become the dominant variant in London in the next 36 hours, and soon across the UK as a whole. It is right that we take a cautious approach to the arithmetic, alongside a strong communications campaign of the sort called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).
Steve Barclay
In a moment.
There is much that we still do not know about this virus, as there is a wide range of opinions on its severity. Hospitalisations and deaths always lag infections by about two to four weeks. We are not at the topping-out point in South Africa, so we do not know what the peak will be, but even a small percentage of widespread transmission will be significant—a point rightly made by the Opposition Front Bench, and the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. This is not, as some suggest, solely an issue for the NHS. Widespread infection and staff absences would have a wider economic impact on areas from our supply chains to our factories.
Dawn Butler
The Minister is absolutely right that we have to do all that we can to stop the spread of the omicron variant. I am sure that, like me, he is encouraging people to take the vaccine and the boosters. Parliament is a really large venue; about 3,000 people work here. Will the Minister confirm that everybody on his side of the House has been doubly vaccinated, and that a covid pass situation will be relevant to MPs, who will be huddled together—hundreds of us—voting today? What protections will MPs have to ensure that we are safe?
Steve Barclay
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but throughout the day there has been consensus across the House on the importance of being vaccinated and of boosters; that has been a point of agreement. Obviously, the management of the House is a matter for Mr Speaker, not for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) correctly highlighted, he and our constituents will continue to be able to access all facilities, as before. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that it is still possible to go to nightclubs, just as it is possible to vote, and these measures will not prevent that.
As well as omicron’s transmissibility, we are also beginning to learn more about the effectiveness of our vaccines against it. Boosters were important before omicron, but they are now critical and, as of this evening, we have delivered 24 million across the United Kingdom. Boosters are, without question, the single most effective thing we can do and plan B buys us more time to get more boosters into more arms. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who, as a GP himself, highlighted the importance of addressing the 15-minute wait period to increase the flow of boosters—a decision that the chief medical officers across the UK have supported. I also concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who rightly highlighted that the second dose is important alongside the booster.
The early evidence suggests that a booster dose is extremely effective; analysis by the UK Health Security Agency shows that a booster dose is 70% to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection. That is particularly important given the speed at which this infection is spreading, which means that the increase will be sharper, and its impact more concentrated, over a shorter period of time.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised an issue. The Health Secretary flagged up in opening the debate that he intended to remove all 11 remaining countries from England’s red list as of 4 am tomorrow. The Health Secretary has urgently considered the issue of releasing people from managed quarantine before they have completed the 10-day isolation—a point also raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and a number of Members from across the House. The Government’s decision is that we should permit early release of those who went into managed quarantine before the changes to the red list and require them to follow the relevant rules as if they had arrived from a non-red list country. Anyone who has tested positive will need to continue to stay in managed quarantine. That will require changes to regulations. We will look to implement that as quickly as possible and we will set out further specific guidance for affected individuals imminently.
I turn now to the statutory instruments before the House. The weight of scientific evidence shows that face coverings can make a difference, even if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said—he is a clinician himself—it is the least that we can do to wear these wretched things. Regulation 1400, which extends the use of face coverings, is a simple step to help slow the spread and I welcome the support of Members. Even those with concerns, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said that they would not oppose such a measure.
It is vital that we draw on our testing capacity to keep Britain moving. Regulation 1415 enables close contacts of confirmed or suspected covid cases who are fully vaccinated to take lateral flow tests every day for seven days. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the lateral flow tests will be self-reported.
Regulation 1416 regarding entry to venues and events is one I know that hon. Members have given considerable attention. But this is very far from what has been described as a vaccine passport—a point that the Health Secretary made in opening the debate. This measure will mean that a negative lateral flow test is required to get into nightclubs and large events, with an exemption for the double vaccinated. Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change this exemption to require a booster.
Vaccination has been and remains our best line of defence. We have heard many contributions from across the House on making vaccination a condition of deployment for staff in health and wider social care settings. I recognise how emotive this issue is. Whether it is our care homes, our hospitals or other health settings, everyone working in health and social care is there to avoid preventable harm to the people for whom they care. As the chief medical officer has rightly said, people who are looking after other people who are vulnerable have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated, which was a point that another clinician—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—made.
In closing, I am grateful for all the contributions today. The measures before us will help us to buy time and deliver boosters, which will provide the best protection against this variant. Vaccination, which was already so important before omicron, is now doubly important, especially in those settings with some of our most vulnerable people. I commend the regulations to the House.
Health and Care Bill
Dawn Butler ExcerptsTuesday 23rd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2021 - (23 Nov 2021)
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 12, which stands in my name and those of many hon. Members across this House, on the protection of the title of “nurse”. The Government’s response to Alison Leary’s petition implies that we are on the same page on the issue of protecting the title. As the Minister said, this is not a party political thing; it is about the safety and protection of patients and the public. I hope that the Government will vote in favour of new clause 12 today, as it is long overdue and brings nurses into line with paramedics and physiotherapists in terms of the protection of titles.
It is shocking that anybody can call themselves a nurse, whether or not they have any qualifications or a first aid certificate—they may have no qualifications at all and they can call themselves a nurse. As we know, when someone calls themselves a nurse, that gives them a certain standing in society and people automatically think they know what they are doing. The nursing profession has some harrowing stories of parents taking advice from somebody who called themselves a nurse but was not one, and the tragic and devastating consequences. It is really important that we have the opportunity to put this right today—in fact it would be dangerous not to do so. Throughout the pandemic, people have been struck off as nurses, yet they are still using the title of “nurse” as they publicly deliver misleading and dangerous information about the pandemic. The public and patients have the right to know that the treatment and advice they receive is from a registered healthcare professional.
Many other countries protect the title of “nurse”. The protection of the title is supported by more than 70 nursing organisations, including the Queen’s Nursing Institute, the Institute of Health Visiting, charities, those representing the public using health and social care, Unison Health, Unite and the Royal College of Nursing and its Professional Nursing Committee.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I would like to put on record my support for nurses, particularly on Nursing Support Workers’ Day. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority that nurses are asking for and that NHS staff are looking for is not restructuring, but investment in resources, a plan to address the staff shortages and retention struggles that the NHS has, and a clear strategy to address the winter waiting times and demands on services such as operations and GP services?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend makes a valid and valuable point. One way we can show our appreciation for nurses’ work is to protect their title, but we should not do that instead of addressing any of the issues she mentioned, along with ensuring that they receive a pay rise.
I thank the people who have petitioned for the change in my new clause for a number of years, including the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who is no longer in his place but supports my new clause; the Labour Front-Bench team; Ann Keen; the chief nursing officer for England, Ruth May; Professor Mark Radford, the chief nurse at Health Education England; the previous chief nursing officer for Northern Ireland, Charlotte McArdle; Andrea Sutcliffe, Matthew McClelland and the Nursing and Midwifery Council; Mr Paul Trevatt; Professor June Girvin; Dr Crystal Oldman; Ms Shamim Donatta Ayiecho; Ms Leanne Patrick; Mr Gerry Bolger; Ms Catherine Eden; and the Florence Nightingale Foundation leadership scholars. The Government know that there is a lot of support for new clause 12 and I hope it passes today.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and specifically to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and the names of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and many other Members throughout the House. First, though, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for his incredibly important amendment on the workforce. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his crucial new clauses on virginity testing and hymenoplasty. As the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I was pleased to be able to support those amendments and am delighted that the Government have introduced their own new clauses on those issues.
I wish to talk specifically about aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which may seem quite trivial in comparison with the important matters I just referred to, but I vividly remember visiting a doctor in my constituency and talking to her about her experience when a patient came to her after she had had far too much lip filler placed into her lips by an unqualified and inexperience practitioner. The poor girl’s lips had, frankly, exploded, leaving her permanently scarred and with the prospect of many years of corrective surgery to try to rebuild her face. That is the stark reality.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) spoke about people being able to call themselves nurses when they are not nurses; aesthetic cosmetic practitioners can not only call themselves that but perform all sorts of procedures, some of which we would find it bizarre and disturbing to talk about and, indeed, at some of which we might look with absolute horror when they are reported on the internet and in the pages of national newspapers. I am talking about semi-permanent make-up and permanent tattooing, which can leave people permanently disfigured. The semi-permanent variety can fade to leave people with bizarre blue eyebrows that require many different procedures to be put back to normal. The list is long: we are talking about tattooing, botox and laser treatment—just imagine the damage that high-powered lasers can do to somebody’s skin when in unqualified, untrained hands.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I think covered both bases there very eloquently. He makes an important point on this issue. The change will make a real difference to people’s lives, so I commend him for his work.
New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures, making it an offence for someone to practise without a licence. I thank her for bringing this to the House today. In that context, I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones); my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who has taken a very close interest in the issue; and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) not only for taking a close interest in the issue, but for her success, with her private Member’s Bill, in moving the dial further forward on the issue more broadly.
As I said in Committee, I entirely understand the intention behind the amendment and that a strong case has been made for further regulation in this area. I and the Department are keen to work with stakeholders, including Members of this House on both sides, to see whether we can take this forward in the most appropriate way and clarify the scope of any further regulation. We are happy—we had a very positive meeting, which was alluded to—and I hope that we will be able to continue to explore the issue with hon. and right hon. Members.
In this context, I also commend the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing for its important work. Its inquiry highlights the huge range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures available, which vary in their level of complexity and invasiveness. We are carefully considering the findings of that report, including, in that context, its recommendation for a licensing system. We look forward to reporting our conclusions from that work early in 2022. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North and others on that.
Amendment 57 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). I can entirely understand where she is coming from—that the professions protected in law must be the right ones, with the right regulatory oversight, recognising that regulation is there for safety. We believe there is no immediate case to change the professions that are regulated, but we will consider whether any new groups of workers should be brought into statutory regulation, and the power to remove professions from regulations would only be used where regulation is no longer required for the protection of the public. For these reasons, we think the approach we are adopting is the right one, but I always reflect on what she says. Even when I do not entirely agree with all of it, I always reflect carefully because she has taken a long-standing interest in these issues.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) raised the issue of the title of “nurse” and protection for it. The title “registered nurse” is protected in law. Currently —she is right—the title “nurse” is not protected, given that it is used across multiple professions, including dental nurses, school nurses, veterinary nurses and similar. As has been pointed out by the interim chief nursing officer for Scotland, any change would need careful consideration of the impact on other groups currently using the title “nurse” outside healthcare settings.
I can see the benefit in providing reassurance and clarity for both patients and professionals. I would also note that the protection of a title is only one part of the regulatory system and the complexities associated with that. I understand where the hon. Member is coming from with her new clause 12. What I would say is that any subsequent change could form part of the legislative reform programme for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which will be taken forward by secondary legislation made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. But we do not feel we are able to accept her new clause, as drafted at the moment, because we do not feel that it addresses those fundamental challenges.
Edward Argar
If the hon. Member is going to be brief, I will of course give way to her.
Dawn Butler
I was going to quickly say that the Government’s response to Alison Leary’s very good petition says that the Government understand it. We could pass the new clause today and then the Minister could amend it in Committee.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but we have had the Committee. We are now at the stage where we have been through this, and I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to pass an amendment that we thought was flawed in its drafting. I can understand the intent behind it, and I have said that I will continue to reflect on that, but we do not feel we can support the amendment as drafted.
On amendment 10 and new clause 28, hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken to those amendments from both sides of the House have raised something that I think is of huge importance to all Members of this House. As I said in my opening remarks, we all recognise that technology, kit and buildings are all wonderful if we invest in them, but they are nothing without the people—the professionals—who know how to care, are able to care and are able to use that kit to provide the best possible outcomes for our constituents. The workforce are in a sense the beating heart of our NHS, and it is important that I again recognise and join the Opposition in paying tribute to the work undertaken by the workforce.
I appreciate entirely the strongly held, sincerely held and, as ever with my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), well-informed views that he brings to this debate, based on his extensive experience. I would extend that to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), in a spirit of bipartisan cordiality. I hope I have been able to help to reassure colleagues just how seriously we take this issues. Hon. and right hon. Members have been right to raise the issue. We reflect very carefully on it. We have already, as I have said, not only set out plans for elective recovery and further reforms to improve recruitment and support for our workforce, but announced yesterday the merger of Health Education England with NHS England, which we believe is an important next step in making sure that workforce needs can be considered in the round. The other key element is, as I say, the development, commissioned in July, of a robust, long-term—15-year—strategic framework for the health and social care workforce.
We are in no way complacent or resting on our laurels in the case of the workforce. Despite the significant progress we have made in recruiting more nurses and more doctors, there is clearly a lot more to do. We recognise that, and I believe it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). He declared his interest. I do not know whether I need to, but his wife is a friend of mine; I should probably declare that too. He made some important points, a key point being that this is not just about projections for recruitment. It is absolutely right that we are focused, as we are, on the retention of our existing highly trained, highly skilled and highly experienced workforce. We look at what measures we can continue to take to address those challenges.
There is the need to recognise that that workforce—the workforce who are delivering on elective recovery and who are delivering on tackling those waiting lists—are the same people who have been working flat out throughout this pandemic, and emotionally and physically need the space and time to be able to recover. We recognise that and take it extremely seriously. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow)—he has jumped around the Chamber slightly in taking his seat—who made the point about reporting and monitoring mechanisms to know how the framework is working and that we are doing the right thing. While we are not, I have to say, fully convinced by the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough about that. I will continue to reflect very carefully on that, on what my right hon. Friend has tabled and on the points he made in debate and in his many meetings with me and other ministerial colleagues.
In the minute or so I have left, I want to briefly touch on the HSSIB amendments, which I know are important, particularly to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but I think she reflects broader opinion in this House. As discussed in Committee, the definition given in clause 108(2) is intentionally broad. HSSIB will be carrying out a range of investigations, and we believe it would be impossible to prospectively identify the material that will be gathered and should therefore be protected by safe space. Similarly, while I take the point she makes about senior coroners and coroners’ involvement, we believe that we have struck the right balance in not extending the safe space exemptions more widely, but recognising the unique status that those judicial office holders have.
I hope I have been able to cover the main themes of the amendments tabled in this group. I hope I have been able to reassure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of this House, particularly in respect of the workforce, just how seriously Her Majesty’s Government take that issue, and the points genuinely and sincerely made by Members on both sides of the House in that context.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 36 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 37
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of England and Wales—
(a) for a person in England and Wales to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in England and Wales.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of England and Wales of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 38
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of England and Wales for a person who is in England and Wales, or for a person who is outside England and Wales but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in England and Wales, to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(2).’. —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 39
Virginity testing offences in England and Wales: penalties
‘(1) A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales), is liable—In subsection (1)(a) “the maximum summary term for either-way offences” means—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
(c) in relation to an offence committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;
(d) in relation to an offence committed after that time, 12 months.’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of England and Wales relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 40
Offence of virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland for a person to carry out virginity testing.
(2) “Virginity testing” means the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose (or purported purpose) of determining virginity.
(3) An offence is committed under subsection (1) only if the person—
(a) is in Scotland, or
(b) is outside the United Kingdom, and is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland.
(4) “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
(5) In subsection (2), “female genitalia” means a vagina or vulva.’
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Scotland of virginity testing.—(Edward Argar.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 41
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland—
(a) for a person in Scotland to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Scotland of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland for a person who is in Scotland, or for a person who is outside Scotland but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland, to aid, abet, counsel, procure or incite the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Virginity testing offences in Scotland: penalties and supplementary
‘(1) A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland), is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
(2) Where a person outside Scotland commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) the person may be prosecuted, tried and punished for the offence—
(a) in a sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or in custody, or
(b) in a sheriff court district determined by the Lord Advocate,
as if the offence had been committed in that district.
Where subsection (2) applies, the offence is, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial and punishment, deemed to have been committed in that district.
(3) In this section “sheriff court district” is to be construed in accordance with section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation).’—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of Scotland relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland for a person to carry out virginity testing.
(2) “Virginity testing” means the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose (or purported purpose) of determining virginity.
(3) An offence is committed under subsection (1) only if the person—
(a) is in Northern Ireland, or
(b) is outside the United Kingdom, and is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland.
(4) “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
(5) In subsection (2), “female genitalia” means a vagina or vulva.’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Northern Ireland of virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 45
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland—
(a) for a person in Northern Ireland to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Northern Ireland of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 46
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland for a person who is in Northern Ireland, or for a person who is outside Northern Ireland but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland, to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 47
Virginity testing offences in Northern Ireland: penalties
‘A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).” —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of Northern Ireland relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 48
Virginity testing: consequential amendments
‘Schedule (Virginity testing: consequential amendments) contains consequential amendments.’—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause introduces a Schedule of consequential amendments relating to the new virginity testing offences.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Randox Covid Contracts
Dawn Butler Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Good Law Project, which started to close the net on Lord Bethell by unearthing all his burner, drug dealer-type actions?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Good Law Project. Over the past couple of weeks we have been talking about the sleaze and corruption we have seen. The Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions about how sleaze and corruption affect the UK. I say to him and to Conservative Members that it is not the UK that is sleazy and corrupt, as we have seen in how the UK has responded to the sleaze and corruption; it is this Government who are sleazy and corrupt.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, which leads me to my second simple question for the House today. Two weeks ago, the Government led Conservative Members through the Lobby for a stitch-up and a cover-up. Many of those Members have publicly and privately expressed their regret at voting in favour of that motion, and I have no doubt that their regret is sincere. They surely must now look with fresh eyes at those who led them through the Lobby. The Prime Minister brought shame on our democracy and on this House. That vote undermined trust in our democracy and the integrity of public office. So today I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite: learn the lesson; do not vote for another cover-up.
The first step in restoring trust is publishing these documents today. Taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backhand deals to companies that pay Conservative MPs to lobby on their behalf. Randox is just the tip of the iceberg in this scandal. Just yesterday, we finally found out the list of the favoured suppliers referred to—the so-called VIP lane for PPE procurement. This is the information that Ministers have failed to release of their own accord, despite a ruling from the Information Commissioner; we found out only because of a leak. No wonder they did not want to publish it. We already knew that those companies that got to the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract than anyone else. As Ministers have belatedly admitted, many of these did not go through the so-called “eight-stage process” of diligence. We now know how these companies got into the VIP lane in the first place. Not a single one of them had been referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party. Of the 47 successful companies revealed yesterday, the original source of referral was a Conservative politician or adviser in 19 cases. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet member who oversaw the entire emergency procurement programme, fast-tracked a bid from one of his own personal friends and donors, who went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.
Dawn Butler
My right hon. Friend might also reference an article by Sam Bright from Byline Times, who talks about the fact that £1 billion of contracts have been awarded to Conservative donors.
Angela Rayner
And £3.5 billion of contracts have been handed out by this Government to their political donors and Ministers’ mates. Almost £3 billion more has been wasted on unusable PPE, which is costing British taxpayers £1 million a day just to store. So, yes, we need an investigation into that, too. We need an investigation into every pound and penny that has been handed out, and to learn the lessons so that public money is not wasted again. But the question before the House today is very simple: do we choose to clean up or to cover up?
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
I am grateful to the Opposition for using today’s debate to raise such an important matter. I welcome the opportunity to debate it and to introduce a few facts.
We have risen to meet the greatest public health challenge in a generation, by working together. Whether it is the NHS, Government, academia, industry, the Army or, indeed, the British people, we have all had our part to play. That has meant that, today, we have given over 110 million life-saving vaccine doses and are now rolling out the booster programme. We have launched game-changing treatments such as dexamethasone and Ronapreve and, of course, built the largest testing infra- structure in Europe, with the new-found ability to test millions of people in a single day.
Dawn Butler
Why did we not use the infrastructure that existed when we were building the system?
Gillian Keegan
That is a very good question and one that I myself have asked. It is important to look at what we actually did. The equipment we had was in universities, and some of it was in NHS labs, but they did not have the scale that we needed, so we all worked together in what they call the triple-helix partnership: universities, the NHS and industry worked together to build and scale up to the level we needed. If you remember, there was discussion at the time about moonshot testing; you all laughed, as you always do because you do not have to deliver, but we delivered it. We delivered the moonshot.
Dawn Butler
May I clarify that, first, the Government did not actually deliver the moonshot, and secondly, that in the end the £100 billion for private companies was diverted to local councils and authorities, which were the ones that delivered the vaccination roll-out, with the help of the NHS, which is a socialist endeavour? I caution the Minister not to twist the truth.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that this is a very interesting question? I know that the Minister has been put on the spot in being asked to provide an answer, but meetings should be logged and minutes of official meetings should be held. If the Minister cannot provide an answer to this very serious question today, I hope that it will be looked into, because it will bring a lot of other things into question if what has been said is indeed the case. I do not want to make a political point, but I am very concerned about this matter for all of us in this House. I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you make it absolutely clear—and I have been in government— that regardless of whether we are in a pandemic, there is an agenda for ministerial meetings and a civil servant present? A pandemic is not an excuse for not recording minutes of meetings.
Mr Speaker
In fact, to answer that point of order, I would have thought that it was even more important to hold meetings on the basis that we were in a pandemic, with minutes that we could refer back to. I am very, very concerned. I do not want to put anybody on the spot, but at some point this matter does need to be clarified.
Gillian Keegan
I do not have a definition of what is within scope, but we will provide that information.
The NAO report said that
“the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
The NAO has confirmed that all the proper contracting procedures were followed. As with all Government contracts, contracts with Randox are published online and can be found through Contracts Finder. I think that hon. Members will find that the date of the contract precedes any minutes or meetings that we have been talking about. In case any Opposition Members have forgotten, Ministers have no role in the evaluation of Government contracts, in the procurement process, in the value of contracts, in the scope of contracts or in the length of contracts. From start to finish, the procurement process is rightly carried out by commercial professionals, who are governed by a strict regulatory framework. I know this, because I was a procurement manager for much of my career before coming here.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been given a really hard gig today and I am actually beginning to feel sorry for her, because she has been given a script that is filled with inaccuracies, and the NAO report is filled with inaccuracies. It is really worrying that the Minister is continuing with an inaccurate script.
Mr Speaker
First of all, that is a point of debate, and the hon. Lady would not expect me to be brought into the debate. Ministers must answer points in their way, and it is for the Opposition to open up the statements that have been made. That is why we have Opposition days, in which I expect people to pose questions. I am sure that when the Minister sums up, she will fill in some of the voids. I am not responsible for what the Minister says; I certainly do not want to be and it would be wrong even to consider that I should be.
Gillian Keegan
May I just make a little bit of progress, as I have been generous with my time? I am happy to be here and I am trying to answer hon. Members’ question as best I can.
I was a procurement professional for many years, and in preparing for today I have spoken to all the procurement professionals involved. We have to remember that they are highly trained, highly commercial, highly professional and highly regulated, and that they have an independent process that Ministers do not get involved with. I have only been a Minister for just under two years, but I can confirm that that is the procurement process.
Gillian Keegan
I do not need any help on the procurement process.
I can confirm that no exception was made for Randox. Of course, Ministers have a role in understanding what is happening with contracts. We have calls and meetings with our commercial partners to find out what challenges they are facing, to drive them to go as fast as they can and to hold them to the commitments that they have made. Such meetings are only natural, but they are nothing to do with the actual contracts; they are to do with delivery and holding our partners to account on their commitments, as is only natural. We have behaved exactly as hon. Members would expect from a responsible Government operating in a national crisis.
The Government do not intend to vote against this Humble Address. We will review what information we hold in scope and—in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) —we will define the scope. We will come back to Parliament and deposit the information in the Libraries, in line with the Government’s established stance on responses to Humble Addresses.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I think we all agree that the Minister today has been given a hard gig, coming to the Chamber today. I hope she will not allow the Government’s approach to ruin her good reputation.
I want to pick up on some of the points the Minister mentioned in her contribution to the House today. She spoke about the National Audit Office. Let me be clear about what it actually said. It said that not all the paperwork it needed was present to enable it to follow the trail of contracts that had been issued. That means that the NAO did not have the information it needed to give a full and correct report.
Let me give the House an example of some of the companies given contracts. They say “awarded”, but really, if there is no other competition, they are just given it. Topham Guerin is one such company. The company worked for the Tory party during the 2019 general election. An independent body found that 88% of its adverts between 1 December and 4 December contained misleading information. One might think that that would preclude it from being given a contract, right? If a company had been found to have produced information that was 88% misleading, we might think it would not be seen anywhere near Government. But no. Instead, it was “awarded” a £3 million contract and attended meetings at No. 10. When I asked the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), about it in the Science and Technology Committee, he could not tell me what on earth it did. It got that money and was then awarded another contract on top of that.
The NAO also said in its report that a company was put into the VIP lane by mistake. A company was put into this magical VIP lane by mistake. One would have thought that that mistake would have been found, but no. That company—a company that was put into the VIP lane by mistake—went on to get a £350 million contract. That is why we need transparency. At the end of the day, people outside this place are asking questions about what is going on inside it. They do not understand it, I do not understand it, and there are people in the Government who are trying to hide what is happening.
There are civil servants who have been at their wits’ end. They have whistleblown. The NAO report cites civil servants who raised concerns all the way through the procurement process, asking why we were paying over the odds for PPE. Even at the higher rate, we were paying over the odds for it.
Questions were raised about Samir Jassal, who is a friend of the Home Secretary. He was acting as a middleman, writing emails to the then Health Secretary saying, “Hey Matt, you’ve been most helpful previously”—very, very familiar. He went on to get some money for a company, which went from being valued at £200 to £10 million.
There are serious questions to be answered. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said earlier, we either have to clean up or cover up. I hope that this is the beginning of a process to clean up.
I agree with those people who say that we have to learn the lessons. In the beginning of the pandemic—in January last year—a lot was being thrown at us, but by September 2020, we knew better. On 17 September 2020, in the Science and Technology Committee, I asked why we gave a £133 million testing contract, unopposed, to Randox when it disposed of more than 12,000 used swabs in a single day and voided more than 35,000 used test kits in a few months. Not only did the company do that, but it had the cheek to charge us for it. It threw away some of the tests—it did not do those tests—and then it charged us for that, so we were still paying for all its mistakes. How is that good business—this is basic—and how is that good procurement? How is that a good contract? It just is not. It is wrong and, frankly, it is corrupt. Baroness Harding said that she could not “confirm or deny” what happened. Again, that speaks volumes.
Randox employed the former MP, Owen Paterson, on over £500 an hour. When I asked Baroness Harding what he did, she said:
“I am afraid you would have to ask Owen Paterson rather than me.”
He was not going to tell me, and she was not going to tell me, but I sure know that the Government should be able to tell me, because at the end of the day, as we said earlier—he was a former Minister in Government—every single meeting should have been logged. There should be minutes of those meetings and they should be made public.
We are way down the road now. This Government were obsessed with centralisation, as opposed to decentralisation. We knew very early on that a local approach was better and was producing results in the 24 hours that we needed them in to help us to stem the pandemic, yet the Government were still obsessed with a centralised approach because they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. They could make sure that their mates got money and that the companies were given contracts that they were not suitable for. A company in my constituency, Medical Diagnosis Ltd, was not even given a look-in to provide any of the services. Local GPs and local pharmacies all wanted to be involved but they could not be because the Government were obsessed with a centralised system where they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. The time for hiding has come to an end.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a vital moment for everyone who cares about democracy, transparency, stemming the waste and abuse of public money and improving the way that our country responds to future crises. I find it extraordinary that, on a matter of such national significance, there was not a single Conservative Member on the list to speak during this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) damningly stated, this was the worst such situation that he had seen since he came into Parliament in 1979, when I was at the very tender age of just one year old.
Let us recall the reasons why we are here today. Randox paid Owen Paterson over £8,000 a month to lobby on its behalf. Mr Paterson then sat in on a call between Randox and Lord Bethell, the Health Minister responsible for handing out Government contracts, and Randox landed Government contracts worth more than half a billion pounds without any kind of proper tender process. There was no competition, just deals done behind closed doors, with discussions between a Government Minister, a Conservative MP and the company paying him handsomely to hawk its wares around the corridors of power. That tells us everything we need to know about how this Conservative Government go about their business.
But the situation with Randox is even more disturbing because of what happened next, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out very ably. After pocketing £133 million of public money to carry out covid testing, Randox failed to deliver, so in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis, we witnessed an unedifying spectacle: the Health Secretary sending the begging bowl around our universities asking to borrow equipment, just so Randox could deliver what it promised.
I echo what so many Opposition Members have said: the Minister has a very positive reputation on this side of the House, but my word, she has been given a hospital pass today. I regret that the hole in which she was placed has become larger, rather than smaller, during this debate.
Dawn Butler
There was a point about Randox that I neglected to mention. Is it not true that it failed to meet every single target that it was set, and yet, it was still awarded another contract six months later? That is unbelievable.
Anneliese Dodds
Many thanks to my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that we have seen failure upon failure upon failure to meet the targets that were set, as she knows very well from her experience in this place and her focus on health matters. I find it extraordinary that the process of the Health Secretary having to call on others so that Randox could deliver what it had promised was described as an example of the “triple helix”. I remember those days very well. I remember academics begging the Government to come to them because they said that they could deliver the testing that our country needed. Were they listened to? We all know what happened: they were not listened to—they were ignored when our country needed that testing. This was an example not of collaboration, but of outsourcing that failed spectacularly on the Conservatives’ watch.
Maggie Throup
I visited Nottingham University recently to see the amazing work being done there. Obviously, continued support for our universities is imperative. I know that they do amazing work, as do our hospital laboratories.
We should celebrate these achievements, not criticise them. I want to reassure the House that there have always been strong safeguards behind these contracts, and that they are awarded in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We monitor all contracts and suppliers closely, as would be expected. We judge them against key performance indicators, and we publish contract award notices for all the contracts awarded to provide test and trace services, consistent with the regulatory requirements.
Dawn Butler
It seems as though the Minister may have missed the whole debate and just come in at the end, because she has failed to take up some of the conversations that we have had during the debate. Can she confirm that the public did not pay for the test kits that Randox threw away?
Maggie Throup
Obviously those details were in the contracts, but I am sure that they conformed with the key performance indicators.
All the contract award notices can be seen on Contracts Finder. We have nothing to hide, Madam Deputy Speaker —nothing at all. The House, and the public, can see what taxpayers’ money has been spent on. We have applied exactly the same criteria, standards and processes in the case of Randox as we have in all other cases. Randox has never been an exception, and we utterly reject the idea that it has received any kind of special treatment. Our partnership with Randox is simply a reflection of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, facing a global pandemic of unknown and unprecedented proportions and acting as a responsible Government should. We worked against genuine fears that we would run out of vital testing equipment, that we would not have the capacity to test people and that the deadly virus might continue to spread from person to person, silent and undetected.
We engaged with Randox and many others. Not only was Randox a UK-based business, but its early laboratory-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19 was capacity that we have been able to use for the whole of the UK. We have fought this pandemic as one United Kingdom. Working with Randox was the right thing to do, it was the responsible thing to do and, quite simply, it was a decision that has saved many thousands of lives.
I will address one issue brought up by a couple of Opposition Members, and reassure them that Arco was awarded contracts for PPE. I thank Arco for its contribution in providing life-saving PPE that we needed at that time.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 3)
Dawn Butler Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
During the pandemic, my right hon. Friend has done a fantastic job of drawing everyone’s attention, rightly, to the impact that the measures—the lockdown measures in particular—have had on children, especially those in school. I hope he would agree that the plans that the Government have set out, including our primary plan of relying on vaccinations, treatments—there are ever more treatments, which is fantastic news—testing and surveillance, is the right way to deal with the challenges of the pandemic.
With all the measures that we have taken, it is clear that we are now in a new phase of the pandemic and that we are learning to live with the virus. Throughout this public health crisis, we have always sought for our provisions to be proportionate to the threat that we face. Parliament has rightly been given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation every six months. We do not wish to keep provisions in place any longer than they are absolutely necessary, especially those that are limiting the freedoms that rightly belong to citizens.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that this House has had time to scrutinise the legislation, but 90 minutes every six months to scrutinise the Act really is not enough time for Parliament.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is right to point to the importance of scrutiny. Of course, it is not just the time that we have for debate now or the regular time we have had since this Act has been on the statute book. Scrutiny is also provided in other ways: for example, she will know that Select Committees have looked at the Act, with parliamentarians represented and taking evidence. That is just another way to make sure that the Act is getting the scrutiny that it deserves.
Sajid Javid
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) makes an important point. He will understand that now that the Act is in place, it is important that the Government act promptly and quickly at any time when we can retire, expire or in some cases suspend measures in it; that there is regular scrutiny of the process; and that I and other Ministers come to the House whenever we can to expire its provisions or, if they are to continue, to justify them.
Dawn Butler
The Act has always been presented on the Floor of the House as an all-or-nothing Bill; MPs never have an opportunity to change, amend or scrutinise it, so I think that the Secretary of State is just a little misleading in how he is presenting it to the House today.
Sajid Javid
Thank you for that intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that I have been very clear not only about the history of the Act, but about the importance of Ministers coming forward for regular scrutiny to set out which provisions can be expired or suspended, or if expiry or suspension are not possible, why the provisions are necessary. That is the purpose of our debate today.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend will know that there are numerous measures that the Government are planning to retain. To do proper justice to his question, I would have to go through them one by one and try to link them with every single Act, but I should be happy to meet him or write to him giving him the proper detail, because I think it was a very fair question.
Sajid Javid
I think I have given the hon. Lady enough opportunities to intervene.
We have come so far and achieved so much as a country because of the sacrifices of the British people and the dedication of our fantastic public servants. We are learning to live with the virus, so we can face the winter ahead with an ever greater degree of confidence. There is no doubt that we will continue to experience bumps on the road—covid-19 has not, of course, gone away, and flu remains an ever present danger—but I am confident that the steps that the Government have set out today strike the right balance, removing unnecessary stringent measures while retaining the tools to fight infection wherever it might arise.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Today really feels like groundhog day. The Government are again pushing through the Coronavirus Act with no scrutiny from Parliament. I do not know what it is about this authoritarian Act that the Government love to push through. Some 18 months ago, the Bill was nodded through—understandably, in a way, but it was never, ever proportionate. As the Secretary of State said, it was fast-tracked legislation. It contained really draconian powers, including the powers to postpone elections, close borders, detain people not suspected of a crime, ban gatherings and remove safeguards for disabled people. This is the mother of all Parliaments and we should always have the opportunity to scrutinise Government legislation. That is what we are elected to do. This all-or-nothing approach does not wash; it is wrong.
As a parliamentarian, I want to get my control back. I want to get back my powers to scrutinise the Government. The Government should not be the sole decider of legislation. We live in a democracy, not an autocracy. The Government should not be making all the rules themselves. That said, I am pleased that some of the most draconian parts of the Act have now been expired. I had a meeting with the Minister and am pleased that she listened to my concerns. Section 51 and schedule 21 —the powers relating to potentially infectious persons—have now been removed. As has been said, every single charge under schedule 21 was wrongful. Those 292 charges were incorrect, and that meant 292 distressed people who were already distressed during the pandemic.
We have to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose, and ultimately it is not. It therefore needs to be scrapped and there needs to be a new Bill. I am already the sponsor of a Bill that has been presented to the House: the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. If we were to vote down this Act today, we would have 21 days to bring forward a new Bill. There is already one that is ready—oven-ready, some might say. [Interruption.] You liked that, did you? My Bill is properly ready to go.
This Government have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted. It is one rule for them and one for us. The latest person that we found had broken the rules was the Prime Minister himself, as his wife’s best friend went around to theirs for Christmas dinner, while other people dined alone throughout Christmas. As I have said, if we voted down this Act, we would have 21 days to bring a new Bill to the Floor of the House. We can do that and we can do it quickly.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new role and I appeal to him to consider one more vital change. I urge the Government to review every fixed-penalty notice issued under the coronavirus and public health regulations, and to establish an appeals mechanism, because people cannot appeal at the moment. Between March 2020 and June 2021, the police processed 117,213 fines. Let us not forget that we had no chance to scrutinise provisions when the Government raised fines from £960 to £10,000. The Guardian revealed that people of colour were 54% more likely to be fined than white people. I say to colleagues in all parts of the House that we should never be forced into an all-or-nothing approach when it comes to legislation. That is not our job. We are parliamentarians and we need to scrutinise legislation. Twenty-one days is enough time to consider better legislation. As we have the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill, based on Liberty’s “Protect Everyone Bill”, I say to every single Member of this House that we can do that.
I am clear that we need to repeal and replace the Coronavirus Act not just because it is dangerous with regard to our rights and our liberties, or because it served the purpose that it was meant to 18 months ago, but because we must do better. We must learn the lessons. I am part of the Science and Technology Committee and there is a joint report that says that this Government have failed on so many occasions. This is an opportunity where we can do better and where this Government can do better. Let us do better, not just for us but for the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am going to reduce the limit to four minutes but it should stay at four minutes if I do it now.
Maggie Throup
I reiterate that we are consulting at the moment for the NHS and other social care settings, and we are not moving the dates that we have already set for vaccination as a condition of deployment in care homes.
The hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised the issue of unlawful convictions. I reassure them that since April 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed all prosecutions under the Coronavirus Act, and it continues to do so. As such, the issue is primarily administrative, rather than one of the wrongful use of powers provided by the Act. That policy of review by the CPS has provided an effective safeguard. All incorrect charges made under the Act and reviewed by the CPS have been overturned, and updated guidance has been issued to the police.
Dawn Butler
I wonder whether the Minister will also consider the fines under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act and whether there will be an appeal mechanism. Will she push for that, please?
Coronavirus
Dawn Butler Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
I am an optimist, as I just said.
Let me carry on detailing the purpose of these measures. Step 2 allows non-essential retail and personal care services to reopen. We have said that that will happen not before 12 April. It will also allow the reopening of leisure services, indoor leisure such as gyms, and self-contained accommodation. Step 2 also sees the reopening—outdoors—of our pubs and restaurants, which I know so many of us are looking forward to.
Step 3 will lift restrictions on meetings outdoors, subject to a limit of 30, and up to six people, or two households, will be able to meet inside. Indoor hospitality, indoor entertainment and all other types of accommodation will be able to open their doors once again. Step 4 will begin no earlier than 21 June. This is the final stage in the road map, because, bolstered by a mammoth testing effort and capacity and by the protection of the vaccination, that is when we aim to remove all legal limits on social contact and restore our freedoms once again.
I know how hard these restrictions have been. I know they have meant missing out on special moments with loved ones and putting important events on hold, and they have also taken a significant economic toll, so we do not want to keep them in place any longer than we judge we have to. I am therefore pleased to say that these road map regulations will expire at the end of June.
Let me turn now to the renewal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which are also before the House today. The Act has been a crucial part of our response to this virus. It helped us to protect the NHS in its hour of need, to keep public services, courts and local democracy running and to offer the financial assistance that has been a lifeline to so many people.
Some provisions in the Act require renewal every six months. If we were to remove the temporary provisions in the Act altogether, we would lose, for instance, measures protecting commercial tenants and renters from eviction, we would not be able to run virtual court hearings, which are an integral part of maintaining the rule of law, and people would not be able to receive statutory sick pay for the full period for which they are required to self-isolate. So there are some important technical provisions that allow for the running of public services, given the social distancing we have at the moment.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The word “crucial” has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in the Minister’s speech. Is it not correct that if these measures are voted down today, the Government would have 21 days to bring a new Bill to Parliament? Is it not also correct that a lot of what we are relying on comes from other legislation and not actually the Coronavirus Act?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The main provisions under which we put in place the lockdown come from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, not the Coronavirus Act. The mainstay in terms of the Coronavirus Act is to allow us to support people and public services. For instance, furlough is in the Coronavirus Act; that is not up for renewal, because it is a permanent part—it is for the full period of the Act. Nevertheless, in terms of being able to pay statutory sick pay to people when they are self-isolating, I am asking the House today to renew that provision, and I think that we must.
I want to stress this point to those who are understandably concerned about the extent of powers in the Coronavirus Act. Although the Act remains essential and we are seeking the renewal of elements of it, we have always said that we will only retain powers as long as they are necessary. They are exceptional powers. They are approved by the House for use in the most extreme of situations and they must be seen in that light. Because of the progress we have made, we are now able to expire and suspend a whole raft of measures in the Act, just as we expired provisions after the previous review six months ago.
We propose to expire 12 provisions in the Act: section 15, which allowed local authorities to ease some responsibilities around social care; section 24, which allowed biometric data held for national security purposes to be retained for an extra six months; five provisions that required information for businesses and people involved in the food supply chain; section 71, which allowed a single Treasury Minister to sign on behalf of all Treasury Commissioners—I know the Whips Office is looking forward to getting its signatures out again. There are two provisions that created a new form of emergency volunteering leave, which we have not needed and are retiring. Section 79 extended arrangements for business improvement districts and section 84 allowed for the postponement of General Synod elections. Those are not needed anymore and we are therefore not seeking to extend them. We only extend that which we think is necessary.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
One year ago, the Government’s Coronavirus Act was passed to address an unfolding emergency in the UK. It was an unknown situation and we understandably rushed through the extraordinary provisions without line-by-line scrutiny. But that was a year ago. Look at how much we have all now learned about viruses, mutations and vaccinations—so why are we still voting through an old bit of legislation? The Act is a blanket of draconian powers that the Government have wrapped themselves in. Last October, we were told that there was not enough time to write a new Bill, but that is simply not true now, is it? We have 21 days to write a new Bill and present it to Parliament and we will not lose anything like the furlough scheme, as has been said before. In fact, most of the measures that we have used have come under other bits of legislation.
There is no need to panic about writing a new Bill, because yesterday I presented to the House the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. The Prime Minister has agreed to read it and to respond to me. May I say that it is oven-ready? In fact, it is not just oven-ready; it is baked and ready to eat. It is a shame that we will not be able to discuss it today because we will not have time. The sponsors of my Bill—it is cross-party—are willing to discuss the Bill with everybody and to take amendments, because it is based on lessons learned and on the science. I sincerely thank Liberty, because without it we would not have this Bill, and it is a really good Bill. Liberty’s “Support Protecting Everyone” paper is a compelling read that outlines the society that we could build as we emerge from the pandemic.
Today Parliament is voting on a piece of legislation that has failed us on so many different levels, even though Ministers have decided that they are going to get rid of some bits of it. It is not good enough; that is Parliament’s job. Worryingly, through cronyism we are seeing the greatest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people and independent businesses into the hands of corporations and multi-millionaires—some old and some newly made. All this is happening at a time when the most vulnerable, those most in need of help and those most in need of support and praise, such as the NHS, have been left out in the cold. That is why I am proposing a new approach—one that is more in line with where we are now and where we are going.
Most powers that have been used to enforce coronavirus rules have their origins in other legislation. Less than 5% are from the Coronavirus Act, so that legislation is quite literally not fit for purpose. That is why we need the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. It would protect disabled people and ensure proper sick pay so that people would not have to choose between spreading the virus and staying at home. It would protect those in rented accommodation. It is an efficient Bill. It has been said that nobody is safe until everybody is safe, so let us make everybody safe.
We do not have to cling to the draconian blanket of the Act just because it is there. My plea to Parliament is: let us take back control and vote against this Bill. My plea to the country is: let us stop allowing this Government to gaslight us, and let us show the Government that we care and that we want to build back better coming out of this pandemic. Parliament has a chance today, and the country will have an opportunity to take back control on 6 May when people vote Labour at the ballot box. Some 126,000 lives of loved ones have been lost due to this pandemic. If we cannot learn the lessons from this, when will we learn the lessons?
Local Contact Tracing
Dawn Butler Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Churchill
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say we have provided £8 per head, giving Liverpool some £14 million to assist with its local public health attack on the virus and to help drive down the rates. Tier 3 local authorities get that help. The Government will work with local areas to accelerate local roll-out and to allow conversations to be ongoing, with additional money to protect vital services. Further details, I am sure, will come from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in time.
As I said, it is untrue that public health experts are not there front and centre. There are about 1,000 tier 1 contact tracers working within the core contact tracing system in health protection teams and field services across the country. More local recruitment is under way. We have more than doubled the size of local health protection teams since the pandemic began. The next layer of the test and trace contact tracing services is NHS clinicians, who signed up to contact people who have tested positive and talk them through the process to find out where individuals have been and who they may have been in contact with. Those clinicians do the most phenomenal job every day, stepping forward with their wealth of expertise to assist.
Today’s motion refers to local contact tracing and that has, in fact, been getting rolled out to local authorities across the country since August of this year. Has it always gone seamlessly? Has it always been perfect? I am always the first at this Dispatch Box to say that nothing ever does, much as we may want it to. Nothing ever does. We put the best efforts into making sure that individuals at a local level are supported in this difficult work every day.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that we want everything to go well, but what we can do is learn the lessons. In my constituency in Brent, people were trying to get access to the NHS database—the Contract Tracing and Advisory Service—and they were met with just “No, no, no” so many times. Will the Minister tell the House the average wait time for local authorities to get access to CTAS? That is vital if they are going to do local test and trace.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I will be coming on to access. As she rightly points out, it is hugely important that local and national systems are in lockstep so we get a better picture of the virus and how it is affecting our local communities.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I will try to keep my contribution to factual information, unlike some of the speeches that we have heard today. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging and apologising for the failures of the test and trace system the other day.
Here are some general facts. The minutes from SAGE on 1 May reported that any delay beyond 48 to 72 hours before the isolation of contacts results in a “significant impact” on the R rate—so every time this goes wrong, there is a significant impact on that rate. SAGE also reported that “at least 80%” of contacts of confirmed cases would need to isolate to ensure an effective track and trace system.
Therefore, every time it is said that Serco has reached 60%, that means that it is failing because it is not an effective test-and-trace system. It also states that 65% of people who test positive have no symptoms. It is wrong, therefore, for the Secretary of State to say that people who have no symptoms are not entitled to go for tests.
Randox won a £133 million contract—unopposed—for a test-and-trace system. It disposed of 12,401 used swabs in a single day, voided more than 35,000 used test kits and disposed of 750,000 unused coronavirus kits owing to safety standards. Even though there is an ongoing investigation it is important that we know where taxpayers’ money is being wasted. I would like the Minister to confirm whether Randox is charging the taxpayer for voided tests. How many tests has Randox voided to date, and how much is the taxpayer being charged for each voided test?
Professor Jon Deeks says that New Zealand tests people at least three times, whereas we in the United Kingdom have a leaky testing problem in contact tracing and run the risk of missing the disease. That is the problem. There has been a backlog of 185,000 Covid-19 tests, and some tests have been sent to Germany, and some to Italy. How many of our tests are processed in the UK, and how many are processed in Europe, which, incidentally, said we are not a priority? I wonder why.
Serco is one of the top outsourcing companies. Serco and Sitel are going to be paid £1 billion for their work. I would say that the money should be given to local authorities.
The BMJ released details of a leaked Government briefing stating that there will be 10 million Covid tests a day as part of a £100 billion expansion. That £100 billion should be given to local authorities.
Covid-19 Update
Dawn Butler Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
Yes. We are bringing more testing capacity into Sutton. We have opened more testing sites in Sutton. I can tell the House that the average distance travelled to a test has now fallen to 4.3 miles from over 6 miles three weeks ago. We are also bringing a new hospital to my hon. Friend’s area—a massive half-a-billion-pound investment in the NHS, showing that we are always prepared to protect the NHS for the long term.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Various companies have multimillion-pound contracts, and it is important that we understand their motivation to succeed. Does Serco get paid for voided test results—yes or no?
Matt Hancock
The motivation of my whole team, no matter how they are employed or contracted, is to beat this virus, and we are working together to do that.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)
Dawn Butler Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
If the Coronavirus Act were voted down today, would the Minister not have 21 days to bring forward to the House another Act, which the House can then agree?
Matt Hancock
The principle of the Coronavirus Act is that it underpins so many of the actions that are necessary. To vote down the Act and not to renew it would lead to an undermining of the actions that we need to take to keep this country safe.