Covid-19: Hospital Parking Charges for NHS Staff

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

It has always been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, not least on the Procedure Committee, which you chaired when I was first elected to this House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) on securing this important debate. I know that this is an issue that she in particular, with other hon. Members, has taken a very close interest in, and it is a timely debate. Before I turn to the specifics of the issue and the hon. Lady’s points, like her, I would like once again to put on record my gratitude and thanks to our NHS and care workers, including those at her local hospital trust. They, as always, continue to do an amazing job in the face of this incredibly challenging pandemic.

To address one of the hon. Lady’s points, I know she will very much welcome and be encouraged by the fact that the Government have put in place a £33.9 billion increase in investment in the NHS, the biggest increase in investment by any Government of recent years. I know she will welcome that very clear investment by this Government in our NHS. However, as she said, it is important that, in the face of this pandemic, as well as thanking our NHS workers, we have taken practical steps as a country and as a Government to further support them. One of those steps has been funding the provision of free parking for NHS staff at work during the pandemic since the spring, as she set out.

As the hon. Lady will know, parking is determined at trust level. While I appreciate she is critical of trust decisions in this space, and that of course is her right, in acknowledging that, I also express gratitude to the trusts that did, following the Government’s clear statement, provide free parking, and to local councils whose provision of free parking space for NHS staff made that possible. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on 8 July:

“The hospital car parks are free for NHS staff for this pandemic—they are free now—and we are going to get on with our manifesto commitment to make them free for patients who need them as well.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 966.]

That remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

I am conscious that the hon. Lady has previously raised a specific question about her own trust, which she also asked today, and which I will seek to address. NHS trusts have control of their parking policies. We, the Government, have made it very clear that we expect individual trusts to follow the approach that I have just outlined and that the Prime Minister set out. To her specific point, trusts have received and continue to receive additional funding to do so, to ensure that they do not lose income. I hope that her trust and others will recognise that, but if it is helpful to her, I will write to her after the debate with more specific information about her local trust and the specific points she raised about its income and funding and the position it has taken on this.

It is, however, also important to set out the broader context, while not losing sight of the clear expectation that trusts will fulfil that policy position. As I say, as the hon. Lady knows, the decision rests with trusts.

[Zarah Sultana]

What I hear from the conversations I have had at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire is that the money has not continued to come; it has stopped. The Minister makes the point that NHS trusts have decision-making powers around parking, and I want to clarify that point, because I find that it then becomes a decision on whether to fund parking or frontline services, and it should not be a choice between those two. There should be enough funding for frontline services and additional funding for parking, so that trusts do not have to make a decision between those.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I will come on to the specific point about funding for this commitment in probably about a page or so’s time in my notes, but I go back to the £33.9 billion increase by 2023-24. The Government have given the NHS the money it said it wanted and needed to fund its services and, in addition, we have funded covid costs over and above that settlement.

Turning to the broader context, which is not just about funding, during the first wave of the pandemic, not only were hospital car parks largely empty of patients and visitors, but high streets are empty and so were council and commercial car parks, which local authorities were able to make available to NHS workers for free. That helped to address the fundamental challenge, which is not primarily funding, but capacity in hospital car parks.

While some trusts have significant capacity in their car parks, a very large number, even before the current situation, saw demand for spaces significantly exceed a limited capacity. By way of a little statistical context, overall, the NHS has around 440,000 spaces on its estate. That is set against over 1.3 million staff, and that is even before visitors or patients are factored into the demand side of the equation.

In recent months, we have seen patient and visitor usage of commercial car parks return. As activity has returned to shops and high streets since the summer, we have seen increased demand for those parking spaces that were available during the height of the first wave. This all means a return to significant demand exceeding a finite supply of available parking spaces. As set out in our manifesto, it is important that the patients and visitors who most need parking can access it, alongside our amazing NHS staff.

I will briefly address the issue of funding that the hon. Lady raised, and the concerns about a potential loss of trust income or trust funding. During the pandemic, we have provided trusts with specific funding for free parking for NHS staff. They continue to receive funding for that, currently as part of the overall system of funding allocation we have put in place. However, as I said, I will look into the hon. Lady’s specific point about her trust and how the allocation of the funding coming through that system is done, to reassure her that her trust continues to be supported through that overall pot.

Alongside the Prime Minister’s clearly stated commitment on NHS staff parking, he referenced our manifesto commitment, the context of which I will touch upon, including what we are doing to increase capacity to address that fundamental, underlying challenge. Some trusts began implementing the manifesto commitment earlier in the year. However, we fully recognise—and did recognise—the need for trusts, given the pandemic, to focus both on implementing the staff parking measures and on their operational response to the pandemic and ensuring they were there for all patients who needed them. We understand that, for reasons that I am sure all reasonable people would understand, many trusts delayed the planned phased roll-out due to take place over the course of this year, reflecting that external context.

The commitment will ensure that, in the course of this Parliament, disabled blue badge holders, frequent outpatient attendees, parents of children staying overnight, as well as night shift NHS staff, will be given free parking at hospitals. This will be the first time that hospital car parking has been completely free in this country for those groups who need it most. It will be mandated by NHS England and NHS Improvement on trusts from 1 January 2021. That mandating process, which takes considerable time, is the only lever by which trusts can be compelled to do this. That is why I say that the decision rests with trusts.

However, we recognise that in the midst of a second wave, flexibility is required. To have both policies operating at the same time will be a challenge for some sites, particularly in urban areas where capacity is limited. As we face this second wave, trusts’ clear focus is on operationally tackling the pandemic and responding to it. I am sure that all reasonable people will recognise the need for roll-out flexibility in the context of the mandating, and given the focus of our NHS on their responsibilities in tackling the pandemic.

On the capacity issues, the Government are committed to increasing hospital car parking capacity. I set out the challenge earlier, but we have set aside over £200 million of capital funding for the financial year to do this. This money is available to trusts to modernise and expand their car parking facilities, and to utilise technology, such as automatic number plate recognition systems, to make parking easier for patients. Trusts will be invited to bid for this funding in the usual way, and we will ensure that they have full details of how they can do that.

The Government have been clear on their commitment on staff parking. We have adhered to that commitment, and continued to provide the funding for it. I will give the hon. Lady more detailed granular information for her trust. We have made significant progress since the announcement of our manifesto commitment. We remain committed to providing free car parking for NHS staff during the pandemic, as the Prime Minister made very clear, and to ensuring that NHS hospital parking is free for those who need it the most, in line with our manifesto commitment that we are clear we will deliver. We must do that while ensuring that the NHS has the necessary resources to deliver the commitment successfully, both in terms of capacity and meeting the revenue funding cost.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Coventry South for securing the debate and for the tone, by and large, that she adopted. I know she feels passionately about this matter, and it is right that she brings that passion, her knowledge and her constituents’ specific concerns to the House. I hope I have answered her points from the Dispatch Box, but I will of course come back to her about any that I have not been able to provide specific detail on in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Medical Devices (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning. Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and only sit in places that are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if all Members sent their speaking notes to [e-mail] after the sitting.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[Edward Argar]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

The statutory instruments concern the regulations for human medicines and medical devices. They form part of a legislative programme to ensure there is a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period to provide certainty for businesses and the public. Most of the changes they make are technical in nature.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve in Committee opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North. We have become something of a double act in these Delegated Legislation Committees covering the legislation for the end of the transition period.

I believe that everyone in this Committee Room shares the Government’s intention to protect patient safety and preserve patients’ access to innovative new treatments. That could not be more important than in the context of the covid-19 response. The statutory instruments have been developed to maintain our world-leading standards in the regulation of medicines and medical devices now that we have left the European Union and as the transition period comes to an end.

The statutory instruments broadly achieve three things: they make minor amendments to existing regulations to take account of the implementation period agreed under the withdrawal agreement; they implement our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol; and they implement specific policy changes to the regulatory regime in Great Britain to ensure that the regulatory framework is up-to-date and functioning correctly at the end of the transition period. The regulations do not prevent the need for future changes, but preserve the solid foundations of the UK regulatory environment to ensure patient safety—something I suspect the shadow Minister will speak about—and to ensure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for science and innovation.

I will mention briefly the most notable policy changes that the instruments set out in law, for the benefit of Members. The instruments are long and technical, so I am unable to address all elements of them in the time available, but I will endeavour to cover the main points.

The medical devices instrument will allow us to maintain the current standards of regulation. We will ensure that patient safety and health outcomes are not adversely impacted, and we will continue to recognise the CE marking on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices, which have demonstrated their conformity with EU regulatory requirements, for a further two and a half years. That approach is both sensible and pragmatic. It provides time for industry to adapt to future regulations and eliminates any delay in access to devices for UK patients, while maintaining continuity.

A policy change that I note for the Committee is the adoption of the new conformity assessment marking for medical devices. The Government have created their own product safety marking, which will be used across goods regulation. The UK conformity assessment—UKCA—mark will be available for industry to use for devices placed on the market in Great Britain from the end of the transition period.

The medical devices instrument, as it applies to Great Britain, removes certain provisions from the previous EU exit instrument, which would have inserted regulations similar to the EU’s medical devices regulation, or MDR, and in vitro diagnostic regulation, or IVDR. That is because the full application of the two EU regulations will now fall outside the transition period.

The independent medicines and medical devices safety review, which delivered its report in July, highlighted the importance of strengthened regulations that do more to protect patients. The regulations, as amended by the medical devices instrument, will be built on using the powers of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which is currently continuing its passage in the other place.

The Bill will provide the opportunity to develop a robust, world-leading regulatory regime for medical devices that prioritises patient safety and innovation. Our plans are in development, and will take into consideration both international standards and global harmonisation in the establishment of our future system. We will of course consult closely with stakeholders within the life sciences and healthcare sectors on that future regime.

I now turn to the human medicines instrument to note a few further changes that will help the UK to maintain its excellent regulatory system for medicines and clinical trials. From 1 January 2021, marketing authorisations granted by the EU will continue to apply in Northern Ireland; however, all medicines to be placed on the market in Great Britain must be authorised through the UK national route.

The human medicines instrument allows the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to have regard to decisions taken by EU member states on products approved via decentralised and mutual recognition procedures when considering whether to authorise those products in Great Britain. That policy is to ensure that the UK can continue to take effective regulatory and safety action on those products.

The instrument will also ensure that novel and innovative medicines continue to come to the UK market after the end of the transition period. That will be achieved by allowing recognition of decisions by the European Medicines Agency to grant UK marketing authorisations for centrally authorised products.

Both the human medicines and the medical devices instruments uphold the Prime Minister’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK market. In doing so, they provide for transparency requirements for medicines and medical devices moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, which will allow the MHRA to maintain oversight of products on the GB market and thus protect patient safety.

For medicines, the MHRA will still retain regulatory powers, such as carrying out a targeted assessment of a medicinal product where it is deemed necessary for safety reasons. For medical devices, non-UK manufacturers placing devices on the UK market will be required to appoint a UK responsible person. The UK responsible person will be required to register devices with the MHRA in accordance with a transitional timetable set out in the regulations.

To fulfil the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol, both instruments make relevant changes to ensure that the relevant EU laws will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period and, additionally, the instruments grant the MHRA powers to continue to regulate medicines and devices in Northern Ireland in order to ensure that there is clear continuity for patients and businesses.

Members will be aware that the MHRA charges fees to cover the costs associated with the regulation of medicines. To reflect the regulatory changes that will take effect after the transition period ends, the instrument reduces some of the fees to ensure that they will still be commensurate with the cost of the work performed by the MHRA.

The devolved Administrations have been kept informed of the drafting of the instrument, and I put on record my gratitude for their continued collaborative approach. In particular, I thank the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, who agreed, despite policy for human medicines being a devolved matter, that the human medicines instrument should be signed solely by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care.

We have also been working closely with industry through the development of the statutory instruments. In September and since then, we have published a number of guidance documents that go into further detail on those changes on gov.uk. We have held an accompanying series of webinars to engage directly with more than 11,500 industry representatives, providing them with an opportunity for their questions to be asked and answered. My officials continue to meet regularly with the major industry suppliers and key trade associations, including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the BioIndustry Association and the Association of British HealthTech Industries.

It is also important to note that the instruments amend pre-existing EU exit legislation made in 2019, taken through on behalf of the Opposition, I think, by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the other half of the Opposition double act on these instruments. A full consultation process was conducted for the pre-existing legislation and, moreover, full impact assessments were conducted for the underlying legislation.

As the nature of the changes in the instruments that we are discussing today are in many instances technical, the impact of the instruments, above and beyond the existing legislation, is not assessed to meet the threshold for further impact assessments; hence they have not been provided for. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his typically reasonable and measured comments. He repeated a number of questions that are familiar to me, but he did not repeat his jokes from previous Committees, which is a relief for hon. Members. I will deal with his points in order.

In respect of a deal or a future relationship agreement, the hon. Gentleman knows me very well and can predict my response. I will, of course, say to him that the negotiations continue, and it would be wrong to prejudge them. However, I know that Her Majesty’s Government continue to negotiate actively and positively with the European Union.

The hon. Gentleman is right in his key point about the importance of patient safety. I reassure him that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention is, as he will know, a passionate advocate for patient safety. She takes it incredibly seriously both in her role as a Minister and given her background in medicine and nursing—it is deeply important to her. As I speak, I suspect she is on the Front Bench with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s request and comments in respect of the Cumberlege review when I see her after the statement.

The hon. Gentleman reflected on a number of other factors. He often asks me in these Committees, quite reasonably, whether we are going to deliver our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. I reassure him that this is the penultimate Delegated Legislation Committee—we have one more to go—in fulfilling this Department’s obligations under the protocol by putting through the necessary regulations.

The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurances. I reassure him that I am confident that these statutory instruments and the regime that follows the end of the transition period will not make patients less safe and will not have a negative impact on our life sciences sector and businesses. The whole approach we are adopting in this country is to strengthen patient safety and put it at the heart of what we do, while also supporting our fantastic life sciences sector and its competitiveness and innovation. I reassure him of my confidence that we will continue to deliver on those objectives.

On responsible persons, the hon. Gentleman rightly said it is important that that process and that individual do the job they are there to do, and do it properly. He mentioned the period of two and a half years on top of the transition period. That was reached in discussion with industry about what it needs and with the regulators about how to make the transition to a new regime effective.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked at length about the MHRA and asked several questions, so I will spend a few minutes responding to them. He will be aware that the UK has substantial capacity and expertise to regulate and evaluate the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and medical devices. The MHRA is expert in many areas, including the licensing of medicines, pharmaco- vigilance and clinical trials regulation. That already provides benefits to patients. The MHRA is the lead regulator on more than 3,500 medicines currently on the EU market.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on the MHRA and its workload. I reassure him that it will receive additional funding of just under £13 million by the end of March next year to help it prepare for the end of the transition period and meet its obligations under the regulations. Among other activities, that is being used to fund investments in new and improved IT systems to enable better regulation of medicines and medical devices in Northern Ireland under the protocol. It has also contributed to additional staffing requirements to manage all aspects of the new regime to which he alluded.

The MHRA is taking robust steps to ensure that it is ready to continue to perform, as it always has done, at the highest level, putting patient safety first, and we have given it the resources to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Edward Argar.)

Pectus Deformity Treatment: NHS Funding

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for bringing to the attention of the House the issue of funding for the treatment of pectus deformity and the impact that that has on people with that condition. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who, in what is a week or two shy of being in the House for a year, has already made a huge impact on behalf of his constituents. I hope that, through him, I can wish his constituent well and a full and speedy recovery from her surgery.

Before I discuss the particular case and issue, I want to place on record my thanks and gratitude to the hard work of NHS staff across the country, who as always have gone above and beyond in supporting us all during the pandemic. We remain indebted to them for their service.

I also want to be clear that the Government have and always will support our NHS, providing it with the finance and resources it needs to continue to provide high-quality, life-changing care. As hon. Members will know, through the NHS long-term plan, we committed to and then legislated for increasing investment in the NHS by £33.9 billion in cash terms by 2023-24.

A fundamental principle of the NHS is that, for people who live in the UK, treatment is free at the point of need regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. That is the basis on which our NHS is built. At the same time, however, clinical commissioning groups have a duty to commission responsibly and to use the funding they have to deliver the best service they can to meet the needs of the overall local population. As such, there will be some treatments or services that are not routinely commissioned locally. These decisions can be difficult but must be subject to rigorous assessment. Surgery for those patients with severe physical complications arising from pectus excavatum is one such area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland set out.

NHS England Improvement—which I will refer to as NHSEI for brevity—recognised that a small number of patients might benefit more from surgery and, as my hon. Friend, set out has explored this area in depth. He mentioned that in August 2018 NHSEI launched a clinical commissioning group policy consultation for surgery for pectus deformity and sought feedback on that proposition for surgery for pectus deformity for all ages. In developing its policy proposition, NHSEI commissioned two evidence reviews to ensure that evidence-based surgical outcomes and psychological benefits were considered. The reviews considered whether scientific research has shown treatments to be of benefit to patients and whether its use represents the best use of NHS resources. In that context, I hear very clearly the points made by my hon. Friend about, in his view, the limitations imposed on that by the nature of the process and the evidence base.

As my hon. Friend set out, the findings of the NHSEI findings review concluded, after careful consideration, that for the surgical correction of pectus deformity there was not sufficient evidence to routinely commission that intervention. He has clearly set out his counterpoint to that position. The study, published in February of last year, noted that in most cases, although surgery can correct the chest wall deformity, surgical intervention does not always take. That is because the majority of people experience only mild physical or psychological symptoms associated with having a pectus deformity, according to the evidence put forward by the review. I understand that the review also discovered areas where further evidence was required, and NHSEI has been working with clinicians and the National Institute for Health Research to further build the evidence, to support commissioning decisions.

I want to be clear that although, based on the existing evidence, the current evidence base, surgery for this condition is not currently routinely commissioned, that does not mean that patients cannot access it if it is deemed clinically necessary in particular circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South was able to set out in the case of his constituent. There are processes in place to ensure that, if it is deemed clinically appropriate, patients can still access the treatment even if it is not routinely commissioned by the individual CCG. The process is, as he set out, the individual funding request or IFR, which can be an alternative route, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland set out, this clearly has not worked for Autumn.

I turn now to the particular circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case. I am incredibly sympathetic to the case that he raises. I understand both his concerns and the need for pace in finding a solution to help Autumn. I will at this point, if I may, pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He is a doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents, as we have seen in respect of this case. We in the House are incredibly lucky, as are his constituents, to have him representing them. I would say that he has made very good use of what I hope will be a very short period of freedom from ministerial office, allowing him to speak in debates such as this. He has used that freedom powerfully once again on behalf of his constituents in bringing Autumn’s case to the House. I hope that his constituents will not take it amiss if I say that although I know that that has been incredibly useful to them and he has been a powerful advocate, as he always is, I hope that his freedom will be short-lived and he will return to the bonds of ministerial office soon, because he was a fabulous Minister while he was fulfilling his various roles.

I also want to place on the record my recognition of and tribute to the courage that Autumn and her mother Sarah have shown. It takes incredible bravery, incredible courage, to speak out and, as Autumn has done through my hon. Friend, to speak out under her own name and her family’s and her mother’s name. That shows a courage that it is very rare to see in any walk of life and in anyone, and I think it deserves recognition by the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on to her my words in respect of that. She is an incredibly brave young lady.

Let me turn to the specifics of the points that my hon. Friend made. Although he will know, and it is only right, that I will caution him that decisions and the response on this of course sit with NHSEI and are not within my gift as a Minister to give, he makes an incredibly powerful case, so what I will say to him is that I am very happy to convey very clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done, to NHS England and NHS Improvement and to the chief executive, Sir Simon Stevens, his and his constituent’s very clear request that the position be reviewed once again, with additional evidence considered. I will also put to them his very sensible, or what seems to me very sensible, suggestion of an approach in the short term and then in the longer term. As I have said, I have to be honest with him; I cannot make a commitment on what the NHS response will be, because quite rightly it is independent and will make those decisions itself. But what I can promise him is that I will put his case to it very clearly.

I can also reassure my hon. Friend that I am of course always delighted to meet him, and if he feels that it would be useful, I will be very happy to meet him again. We may do that in the next few weeks, while he enjoys a few more weeks of freedom from the red boxes, but I am very happy to do that for him, because this is an incredibly moving case. He has put the case in very human and very moving terms, but I suspect that, if I may put it this way, Autumn in a sense represents probably many more cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South has set out. They may not have felt able to come forward and may not be publicly known, but there are others who are in Autumn’s position and will be listening to what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said. I pay tribute to him, as always, for his eloquence, but I have to say I am afraid that although he put the case very powerfully, Autumn’s words put it even more powerfully to the House. There will be people listening to what she said and identifying with that and feeling the same things, so I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend if he feels that that would be helpful.

To conclude, I will reassure my hon. Friends that we will continue to work with clinicians and researchers to build the evidence base and understanding of this condition, to support future commissioning decisions but also, hopefully, within the confines of the clinical evidence base and decisions by NHSEI, to be able to better help people like Autumn in the future. I am grateful to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

DHSC Answers to Written Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on his Department’s performance in answering written questions from right hon. and hon. Members.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

Parliamentary questions are a key element of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Government on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. As the House would expect, we take them very seriously, and as you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members will know, I take seriously all aspects of my and the Government’s accountability to this House. Prior to the pandemic, my Department had an exemplary record of providing accurate and timely answers. In the last full parliamentary Session, despite receiving more PQs than any other Department, we had the highest response rate in Whitehall. However, as hon. Members will be aware, DHSC, its Ministers and officials have been at the forefront of responding to this pandemic, with the attendant additional workload that has brought.

As such, it is a matter of regret that we have been unable to sustain previous PQ performance, for which I rightly apologise to you and the House. However, it is explicable in the face of a trio of concurrent challenges. The first is volume: between March and October this year, we received over 8,000 written parliamentary questions across both Houses. This compares with 4,000 for the equivalent period last year. The second challenge is timeliness: we have met a rapidly, almost daily, changing situation, and answers drafted by officials are sometimes out of date shortly after they are drafted. We have been prioritising accuracy of response to Members over speed, but this can mean that responses have to be redrafted, with attendant delays.

The third challenge is policy input: despite increasing the administrative resources to respond to parliamentary questions, it remains the same policy officials who are responding to the pandemic operationally and drafting regulations and are the only people with the requisite policy expertise to input into parliamentary questions and responses.

That said, Mr Speaker, although we continue to field exceptional volumes of parliamentary questions, I want to reassure you and the House that we are not making excuses in providing these explanations, and are taking every possible step to recover our performance. We have instituted a parliamentary questions performance recovery plan and are delivering against it by increasing resource where we can and clearing the backlog, focusing on the oldest parliamentary questions first.

More broadly, throughout this challenging time the Secretary of State and Ministers have sought to make themselves regularly available in the House to be questioned and held to account. Between March and October, the Secretary of State made 18 statements and answered seven urgent questions. We have also seen seven general debates on covid since March, and that is not including junior Ministers’ appearances in the Chamber. This is not an alternative to written parliamentary questions, but it is an important reflection of our accountability to this House.

To conclude, written parliamentary questions will continue to be a top priority on which I am briefed weekly. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members for your and their patience and recognition of the exceptional circumstances of recent months. In the weeks and months ahead, we will work hard to restore our leading performance, which hon. Members have a right to expect.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which was born of extreme exasperation. I thank my hon. Friend for his response, his contrition and his apology, and for his offer to do better in the future.

If other Departments can answer 90% of named day questions on time, why cannot the Minister’s? Will he set a date for the clearance of the backlog to which he referred and guarantee future compliance with the rules and the spirit of the rules? This is not just about timeliness; it is about the quality of the answers. Since this is the week of resets, will the Minister now tell his ministerial colleagues and officials to abandon their tactic of, basically, dumb insolence towards those of us who ask challenging questions?

Does my hon. Friend accept that these questions and answers increase public trust in our democracy, and should be a catalyst for improving public policy? If his Department is in the lead in suppressing liberty in this country, is it surprising that there are more questions to his Department than to others? Because issues of liberty are at stake, surely it is all the more important that these questions are answered quickly.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, other Departments, while they have heavy workloads, are not leading the response to the pandemic. In response to his final point, he will not be surprised that I do not characterise it in that way. Instead, I would characterise it as the Department of Health being in the lead in saving lives and protecting the NHS in this country.

My hon. Friend asked two other substantive questions. I think his language was a little intemperate in respect of the serious efforts that officials undertake every day to try to provide accurate and timely answers. There is no suggestion that they seek to stonewall or to avoid responding. They do their best, but it is difficult and the situation changes day by day. Where answers are deemed to be inadequate, hon. Members often revert to me directly or table their questions again, and we endeavour to fulfil our obligation to provide accurate answers.

On my hon. Friend’s question about recovery, we have set a trajectory for each month in order to recover performance over the coming months. Of course, that depends to a degree on the workload of officials in responding to the pandemic, as well as in providing answers, but I do not see it as an either/or; we intend to recover performance in parallel with tackling the pandemic.

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

I thank the Minister for his response and for the hard work he and his Department put in. However, as he acknowledges, the performance here, like in so many other areas, is just not good enough. We know it is tough, but there comes a point when it begins to look like departmental scrutiny is being used as a cover for evading giving answers.

This morning, I looked at the Department’s response times to my own written questions over the past six months. I have had to wait over one month for an answer 29 times, over two months 11 times and over three months four times. I was actually thinking of putting in a question asking for the average response times to questions, but then I thought I would just be waiting a long time for that answer as well. I have even had to wait five months for the answer to what I thought was a pretty simple question asking what tests for covid-19 had been used. One hundred and sixty-eight days later, I received the utterly unrevealing answer:

“A large number of different tests have been used throughout the programme.”

I was lucky; my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) waited 18 weeks for an answer to a question on tests, only to be told:

“The information is not held in the format requested.”

Why did it take so long just to say that? Do Ministers even read the answers that they sign off?

This is not just about the time; the quality of the answers that we get back also needs improving. On dozens of occasions, I have been told that the Department does not hold the data, or no real attempt is made to answer the question that was asked. I accept that sometimes that information may not be easily acquired, but too often it looks as though the Department wants to keep us in the dark. I remind the House that the ministerial code requires Ministers to be

“as open as possible with Parliament”,

even when that may be inconvenient to them. In the spirit of openness, will the Minister also look at restarting NHS England and NHS Digital publications?

In conclusion, we all understand that the Department is dealing with many pressing issues, but scrutiny is important. Accountability matters, and if the pandemic is used too often as an excuse for standards to slip, that is how we go from questions not being answered to major policy changes being announced by media leaks, until we end up with the shameful spectacle of spivs and cronies pocketing millions from PPE contracts. Government must do better.

[Edward Argar]

I was going to say that, as ever, I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tone, right up to almost the end of his remarks. On his substantive points, when it comes to accountability to this House, he will know from our regular double acts at this Dispatch Box and in Committee that I and fellow Ministers do not shy away from our accountability to this House in all its forms.

On volume, as I have said, during the same period last year we received 4,000 written questions; this year, the figure has been 8,000. That cannot be addressed by increasing administrative resource alone, because the technical expertise of policy experts is required to provide accuracy in the answers that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members seek. The same policy officials are dealing, day to day, with all aspects of the response to the pandemic.

The hon. Gentleman talked about accuracy, and he is right about the importance of accurate and timely answers. Given that we have answered 8,000 parliamentary questions between March and, I believe, October, some may, sadly, not live up to his expectations. I know that he will hold me and other Ministers to account when that is the case.

In answer to another of the hon. Gentleman’s question, yes, I and other Ministers read not only the answers and the questions, but the background to those questions. If we do not, we will quite rightly end up at the Dispatch Box, being asked those questions again and being challenged on the Floor of the House. In view of that, and in view of our obligations to the public and under the ministerial code, it is absolutely right that we take the answering of written parliamentary questions very seriously.

On the hon. Gentleman’s final point about NHS Digital and the publication of data and so on, I am happy to take that away and look at it for him.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is a fellow member of the Procedure Committee. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Department takes the answering of questions seriously, because the answering and the monitoring of written questions and correspondence from MPs will help Ministers to identify problems in the implementation and roll-out of their policies.

The Procedure Committee, which I chair, has shown some leeway to the Department in recognition of the pressures that it faces, but I invite my hon. Friend to come to the Committee in the next few weeks to explain how he is going to address the backlog.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I recall when she kindly appeared before the Committee to answer questions on parliamentary questions at the Home Office. I look forward to the reversal of the position in the coming weeks.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was she any good?

[Edward Argar]

I would say that she gave exemplary answers, which fully satisfied the Committee. I have received the letter that she recently sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are grateful for the pragmatic and reasonable approach that her Committee has adopted. She will, quite rightly, want to scrutinise performance, and I look forward to appearing before her Committee to answer detailed questions on the matter.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer at the beginning of the debate. I initially thought that it was perhaps a tad unfair to single out his Department in the circumstances. In my experience, others have been worse—I hope his Treasury colleagues are listening. However, I will confine my remarks to his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the SNP health spokesperson, was delighted yesterday to receive an answer to a named day question that she tabled on 22 June. It referred her to a table of data that, unfortunately, was absent from the answer. Perhaps the Minister could ask his colleagues to get that table over to her, rather than her having to wait six months for a response.

[Edward Argar]

I am again grateful for the tone that the hon. Gentleman adopts. We have adopted in our recovery plan an attempt to deal with the oldest questions first, to try to get as up to date as we can. If he or the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) lets me know the detail of that question, I will be happy to look into what he raises and to get that table to her.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

No one could underestimate the challenges that the Department of Health and Social Care faces at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has engaged with me and other colleagues during this time. However, there are clearly operational challenges as a result of this pandemic. My hon. Friend talked about the review that the Department is undertaking. Will he ensure that he shares the lessons learned from that not only with Members but across Government? We will have to look at being diverse in our operational structures, particularly within Government, to ensure that we expediently answer Members’ questions.

[Edward Argar]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Perhaps the best mechanism by which lessons learned can be shared will be through my written response—in due course—to and my appearance before the Procedure Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). If appropriate, Mr Speaker, I will of course share that response with you and with the Leader and shadow Leader of the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On the plus side, because I have the Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s mobile numbers, when I really want an answer, I just text them. To be fair to them, they have been phenomenally helpful at key moments. I think many hon. Members feel that. At the same time, to be honest, the comms strategy this year has been a complete mess and a disaster. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department and say that Parliament should not be used only for accountability but to try to speak to the people of this country and to get across clear messages in a timely fashion. In that regard, will he tell us when he will publish the national cancer recovery plan, because lots of people have major anxiety at the moment about when their cancer will be treated?

[Edward Argar]

I am always pleased to receive messages and inquiries from the hon. Gentleman. He raises two important points. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) is working on the national cancer recovery plan at pace. I am happy to revert to the hon. Gentleman when I have had an opportunity to speak to her. On his broader point, he is right that it is important that we in this House recognise that, in our democracy, people consent and comply because they are persuaded. It is important that we use this House and all the mechanisms within it to persuade and bring the public with us.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

We have all had enormous increases in constituency correspondence during the pandemic, so I can only imagine what it must be like at the Minister’s Department. However, in looking at how his Department responds to MPs’ questions, will my hon. Friend reassure the House that any changes will not come at the expense of his Department’s excellent parliamentary engagement and briefings for Members with Ministers and scientific experts that allow us to question advisers on detailed scientific and medical matters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend highlights that the workload from constituents has increased for all Members. I recognise that. It is important that we do our bit in trying to answer questions in as timely a fashion as possible, to assist colleagues in the House with responses to constituents. In response to his second point, he is absolutely right. As I alluded to, it is not only through attending the House and through its mechanisms that Ministers have been accountable; as a Department, we have sought to use multiple channels—briefings to colleagues, WhatsApp and a whole range of newsletters and other mechanisms—to get messages out and to communicate with colleagues and answer their questions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his departmental response to covid-19 and many issues. As one of the Department’s most prolific questioners, I am aware of the pressure on the Minister’s Department to respond to a vast array of complex medical and social issues. Perhaps to assist the Minister, his team could work closely with the health trusts to provide up-to-date data in a timely manner.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is indeed a prolific questioner, but his questions are always welcome and to the point. He highlights an important aspect that affects the response of the Department, which is that a significant number of questions, and the information required to answer them, is not held within the Department but by various health trusts, NHS England or other external bodies, which can occasionally introduce additional slight delays in the system. We are working closely with them to minimise that and get answers as quickly as we can to hon. Members.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising this matter and I recognise the importance of parliamentary questions for their role in parliamentary scrutiny, but it is only right that we recognise the substantial weight on the shoulders of the Department of Health and Social Care as it leads the charge against this pandemic. I personally have been blown away by the readiness and willingness of Ministers to engage through a whole range of communications, including Zoom, email and WhatsApp. I am grateful, in particular, for their engagement when it looked as though Bishop Auckland residents might have been teetering on the edge of tier 3 over the summer, which we thankfully avoided. Can my hon. Friend confirm that efforts are being made to clear the PQ backlog, but that other communication channels will remain open for MPs and their engagement?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the officials in the Department, who are working hard to clear the backlog and do take this very seriously. As I say, we are trying to clear the older PQs first, and then get back up to the performance we had before. She is absolutely right to highlight the other methods of communication. I may not be the most technological Minister in this House, but we have been seeking to use every means we can to try to answer colleagues’ questions and to give them the information they need.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

In my time in this House, I have campaigned alongside women and families affected by sodium valproate. Many of the victims of this scandal have felt for decades that Governments have tried to push it under the carpet, so can the Minister understand the frustration and suspicion that these victims feel when written parliamentary questions about the Cumberlege review, which was published on 8 July, continue to take a long time to answer—and when those answers come, they are very poor—and their frustration that since July there has been no progress, beyond the apology in this House, in implementing that review? Can the Minister update the tens of thousands of victims of the Primodos, surgical mesh and sodium valproate scandals and assure them that their campaigns for justice remain high on his Department’s agenda?

[Edward Argar]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone she adopts on what is actually a very sensitive and very important issue. I can reassure her that that issue does remain very high on the Department’s agenda. At risk of tempting fate, if she wishes either to write to me or to table a question to me, I will endeavour to get it answered very quickly so she has something on the record on that.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Harrow East with Bob Blackman and see if his replies have landed.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can my hon. Friend also look at the quality and at the repeat questions that have to be asked to clarify the answers that are given to written parliamentary questions? In my case, I have had to submit often detailed letters to Ministers because WPQs basically do not supply the information required. Some that are now coming back after six months of waiting have been about, for example, offers to supply PPE to the national health service and people who have had tests but not actually got the results—and I could go further. The reality is that the quality of the answers to WPQs as well as the quantity have not been good enough, so will he look at those two aspects, please?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who landed his question very effectively. He is absolutely right to talk about the balance between speed and accuracy. In some cases where the issue is complex, a letter may be more appropriate for getting detailed information, rather than the short factual response to a parliamentary question. Sometimes the delay can be because Ministers—this goes to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—on reading the question and the answer, and looking at it as a constituency MP as well, may realise that they want to send it back for redraft because it does not answer an hon. Member’s question. That can cause delays, but we endeavour to provide accurate answers as swiftly as we can.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I absolutely understand and appreciate the pressures on the Minister’s Department. However, it does grate that I regularly hear, in debates in this Chamber, Conservative Members saying how quickly and easily they can get direct responses from Ministers. He himself referred to a WhatsApp group a few moments ago, and I suspect that that is for Conservative Members. For those of us on the Opposition Benches, written questions and letters are often the only means to scrutinise, secure detailed information and hold the Government to account. Over a third of replies to my questions have been delayed for more than a month, and the longest delay was 190 days. I have had replies to letters outstanding for up to five months. Do my constituents have any less of a right to a response? Does the Minister have any advice for me as an Opposition spokesperson about how I can get more timely and detailed information?

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Bryant might have the mobile number for you.

[Edward Argar]

I am a little bit surprised by the hon. Lady’s tone, because she and I regularly speak, and she has very easy access to me around the House, which she regularly uses, as do all Members. She has been on various briefing calls and other calls where we answer data questions and any question that Members wish to ask, and this House is for that purpose. Her constituents have exactly the same right to answers as anyone else, and they get exactly the same response as those of any other Member. Although this urgent question is about written parliamentary questions, I would flag that the Department has received more than 63,500 pieces of correspondence so far this year, compared with just 30,000 in the entirety of 2019. We have increased resourcing for that team, as we have for the PQ teams, and we are getting through the backlog as swiftly as possible.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in terms of support for my local party association. I have recently tabled written questions on suicide prevention on the railways; earlier in November, a person in my constituency sadly died after being hit by a train. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Land Sheriffs, a Harlow-based security company which, through its railway security programme, has intervened and prevented close to 300 suicides on the railways across England?

[Edward Argar]

As my right hon. Friend mentioned, he has recently tabled a number of written questions on this issue, which I look forward to responding to in a timely fashion. I am happy to pay tribute to Land Sheriffs in his constituency for its impressive work in helping to tackle and prevent suicide on the railways. I know that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention will be very interested to hear about its work.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his answers today. I understand the pressure on his Department—I really do—but of the 28 questions that I have tabled to the Department of Health and Social Care, 86% were answered late, and if those due today are not answered, that figure will rise to 88%. I have to say that the quality of some of the responses is pretty poor too. Will he consider starting up the NHS England and NHS Digital statistical publications that were paused during the pandemic, so that we can get some of the information ourselves?

[Edward Argar]

I think the hon. Gentleman has four parliamentary questions outstanding. By his timely intervention, he may find that when I get back to the Department this afternoon, I will ensure that the figure does not rise to 88% overdue. His substantive point is the same one made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which I said I will take away and look at.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I understand that since the start of the pandemic the Secretary of State has made 16 oral statements in the House on coronavirus and there have been seven urgent questions and five general debates on the topic. It is, of course, important that Members receive timely responses to inquiries, but does my hon. Friend agree that there have been significant opportunities for Members to raise concerns on the Floor of the House and to seek answers from Ministers?

[Edward Argar]

I think it is fair to say that no one could accuse Ministers in the Department or the Secretary of State of not being willing to be accountable to Members in a multitude of ways. But of course, it is not an either/or, so we will endeavour to continue to perform well in attending this House and also to improve performance on written parliamentary questions.

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

[Edward Argar]

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

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing so many urgent questions and statements, which allow so many Back Benchers to ask questions? I am very grateful for that.

All Departments have had a higher volume of questions, not least the Department of Health and Social Care, because of the health pandemic. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the uptake of other forms of communications that have been made available?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the other methods of communication with right hon. and hon. Members and the other ways they can access information—not as an alternative to written questions and scrutiny in this Chamber— which appear to have been extremely popular with Members on both sides of the House. We intend to continue to make such briefings and access available to all right hon. and hon. Members.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

Does the Minister accept that questions are sometimes tabled to Departments in response to issues raised by our constituents, and that by failing to engage with Members in this way—I understand all the reasons why it is taking longer—it is ultimately the public who suffer the consequences?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I refer her to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). We recognise both the increased workload on hon. Members from their constituents and the importance of timely answers to written questions in helping them to discharge that obligation to them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I thank the excellent Minister for his response, but may I suggest that the covid situation is allowing the Government to dodge issues they do not want to answer? On the Floor of the House, I asked the Secretary of State how many tests with false positives and false negatives there are. He dodged that question, so I tabled a named day question on 21 October, asking for his estimate of how many tests with false positives and false negatives there are. Yesterday, I received a response saying that they had no idea. They must have known they had no idea on 21 October, so it seems to me that that delay had more to do with not wanting to put that information out than any other reason. Can we have accurate and timely answers, not politically motivated delays?

[Edward Argar]

It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend and to be questioned by him, both at this Dispatch Box and in other forums. I have to say to him that I do not think it is a fair reflection to suggest that the Government or others are dodging answers. We are at this Dispatch Box regularly. We do answer questions regularly. I will look into the particular question he raises, but often to answer we require information from external bodies or other NHS bodies, which can take time.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister emphasises other means of engagement to written questions, delays to which I too have experienced far too often. In April, I wrote to the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) with the concerns of a constituent of mine over personal protective equipment for care homes. I received a response in October. Will the Minister acknowledge that those kinds of delays undermine the confidence of my constituents in the Government’s public health measures? Will he commit, which I do not think he has done so far, to putting in place the capacity and resources to respond to constituents’ concerns in a timely manner, in whichever format they are expressed?

[Edward Argar]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we have already put in place that capacity. We have doubled the capacity for parliamentary questions and I have significantly increased capacity for correspondence. The only thing I would say on correspondence, which she alluded to, is that at any normal time we have 850 pieces of correspondence open. Reflecting the volume that comes in at the moment, that is about 10,000. We have increased the capacity in the Department, but, of course, as long as volume remains high it will always be a challenge to keep up with that demand. We are doing our very best.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister, because he has been courteous in the way that he has dealt with this matter. He certainly has had the short straw.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.

Independent Reconfiguration Panel

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. I recognise her continued interest in local health matters and her championing of her constituents’ interests. She knows that I have considerable respect for her and her work in this House on behalf of her constituents. However, she will perhaps not be surprised that I cannot fully agree with the picture that she painted to the House today.

Before I get into the meat of the debate, let me pay tribute to all the staff at the trust and across our entire NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, particularly at this time. I know that is a sentiment that the hon. Lady would share.

As the hon. Lady said, all proposed service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients and should meet the four tests for service change: they should have support from GP commissioners, be based on clinical evidence, demonstrate patient and public engagement, and consider patient choice. It is right that these matters are addressed at a level where the local healthcare needs are best understood, rather than emanating from Whitehall. I should point out that in cases where these proposals are referred to Ministers, they are considered impartially and on their merits, and that is what has happened in this case.

Without recounting all the background that the hon. Lady has set out for the House this evening and on previous occasions, in December 2017, the “Improving Healthcare Together 2020-2030” programme was established to address the significant estate quality and finance challenges that Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust is currently facing. NHS Surrey Heartlands and NHS South-West London clinical commissioning groups are the organisations responsible for making decisions about local healthcare. They led the development of proposals for any potential service changes, and it is right that they did so at that local level, including appropriate consultation. As she set out, following a period of sustained engagement and options development, on 3 July 2020 local NHS leaders approved plans that will see a brand new state-of-the-art hospital built in Sutton to treat the sickest patients and most services staying put in modernised buildings at Epsom and St Helier hospitals.

The hon. Lady raised a number of concerns about this decision—in particular, around transport and travel, bed numbers, acute services, and the impact on more deprived communities and health inequalities. As she said, she also raised these issues at our meeting in July, which it was a pleasure to undertake with her. When the decision was made, measures to address these issues were also set out, including extending the H1 Epsom and St Helier hospital bus route into Merton and further south into Surrey, beyond Epsom, and increasing the frequency of travel between the three hospital sites; reviewing car parking on all three sites; increased bed capacity to care for an extra 1,300 in-patients a year; advances in technology and treatment; closer working with community services so that fewer patients will need an overnight stay and will be able to get home sooner; exploring further opportunities for primary care services at Epsom and St Helier hospitals; and expanding child and adolescent mental health services on the St Helier site. Under the proposals, about 85% of current services would stay put at Epsom and St Helier, with six major services being brought together in the new specialist emergency care hospital, including A&E, critical care, and emergency surgery. The capital investment for those proposals is not only to fund the new hospital but to invest in and improve the current sites at both Epsom and St Helier, including funding for the A&Es.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Treasury is and will remain fully engaged with not only this proposal but all 40 of the Government’s hospital proposals. As she would expect and know from her long career in the House, the Treasury takes a close interest in any proposals that entail the spending of significant amounts of public money. This is a significant investment in improving healthcare across the communities served by these hospitals, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) have recently set out their and their communities’ strong support for these proposals.

The Independent Reconfiguration Panel was at the crux of the case made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. As she set out, the IRP is the non-departmental public body set up in 2003 to provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice on contested NHS service changes and reconfiguration. There are currently 15 panel members who review referral cases. They have a mix of clinical, lay, patient representative or engagement, specialist and managerial backgrounds. The IRP has provided independent advice more than 80 times since it was established. With reconfigurations referred to the IRP, there is an open and transparent process, which people expect to be carried out to the most rigorous standards of integrity, honesty and impartiality. We must adhere visibly to those standards, and I believe, on the evidence I have seen, that those standards were met in this case.

As the hon. Lady will know, local authorities have a power to refer certain proposals to the Secretary of State where they consider that there has been inadequate consultation, where reasons given for non-consultation are inadequate or where they believe that the proposal is not in the interests of their area and communities. The Secretary of State can then choose whether to commission advice from the IRP, which is normally provided in 20 working days, and Ministers are clear about the need for that advice to be swiftly and efficiently given. Following collection of evidence, the IRP submits its report either with advice not to proceed or containing recommendations to the Secretary of State on specific proposals. I emphasise that the IRP’s role is advisory, and the Secretary of State ultimately makes the decision.

In July—at roughly the same time as my meeting with the hon. Lady, which slightly limited the conversation we were able to have—Merton Council referred the scheme to the Secretary of State, who referred it to the IRP, which provided its advice on 28 October. Following thorough consideration of that advice, the Secretary of State accepted the IRP’s impartial advice, which was that there was no reason to contradict the proposed choice of Sutton—Belmont—as the location for the new specialist emergency care hospital. I know that there have been some noises locally about the possibility of subsequent legal review or legal action, so I will not dwell on that aspect. I do not believe that any judicial review has been tabled at this point, so I feel that I can comment a little further on the issues she raised. I must emphasise that the IRP provides impartial, independent advice.

I turn to the specific points that the hon. Lady made about Sir Norman. It is up front and totally clear in the IRP report that Sir Norman Williams, the chair of the IRP, declared openly to IRP members what was already a matter of public record: that between May 2016 and September 2019, he had been a non-executive director of St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which neighbours the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, and he made it clear to the panel that that was a linkage. However, Sir Norman clearly left some time before the proposals were considered by the panel and, indeed, before the March date of this year that the hon. Lady referred to. As she said, independent panel members considered that matter and the issues that she had raised, and confirmed that in their view the historic connections with the case did not represent a conflict of interest and agreed that they were not relevant to Sir Norman’s role in chairing the formulation of the advice.

I have to say that I think it would be wrong to question in any way the integrity, impartiality or independence of the panel or the chair, who I believe is more than capable, rightly fulfilled his previous role to the best of his ability and fulfils his current role entirely to the best of his ability, recognising and fulfilling the requirement to be independent in the view he takes. I have seen no reason—or no compelling reason—to suggest that his behaviour has in any way contradicted that need for independence and objective guidance.

It is of course right that all reconfiguration decisions are taken in the best interests of patients and the local population, following due process. The people affected by the changes need to be involved in making the key decisions, and the IRP advice concluded:

“Patients and the public will need to be engaged in shaping and understanding the new landscape of services to gain maximum benefit from them.”

I believe that they will be.

I know that the hon. Lady’s constituents are and will continue to be strongly represented by her. I recognise the strength of her views, but I do believe that the process has been carried out fairly, independently and appropriately, in seeking to reach the best decision for the people who use the hospitals.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to increase NHS capacity for winter 2020-21.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

The Prime Minister has announced £3 billion to support NHS capacity this winter. Among other things, that money funds our Nightingale hospitals, so that surge capacity is available, and the NHS’s ongoing access to additional independent sector capacity. It also supports the safe discharge of patients, helping to reduce pressure on beds. In addition, £450 million of capital funding has been announced to upgrade and expand A&Es across the country, to help prepare the NHS for winter, and that money is already being spent.

[Mike Wood [V]]

The £3 million announced to increase winter capacity in Dudley is hugely welcome, but will my hon. Friend also look at Dudley’s bids for capital funding for a hybrid theatre and reconfiguration of critical care? Will he join me on a visit to Russells Hall, so that he can see the transformative effect that those projects would have on care for patients in Dudley South?

[Edward Argar]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from £3 million to increase capacity at Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley as part of the investment to upgrade A&Es ahead of winter. Future NHS capital spending will, of course, be determined at the upcoming spending review, but once our settlement has been confirmed with the Treasury, we will consider carefully how projects are prioritised within it. In the meantime, I encourage the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust to discuss its proposals with NHS England and NHS Improvement. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this, because I know how hard he campaigns on this issue, and I would be delighted to take him up on the offer of a visit when I am able to.

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

The NHS will only survive the winter if its workforce are valued and supported. The evidence from the British Medical Association to the Health and Social Care Committee this morning was stark. So does the Minister understand how demoralising it is for staff to hear reports that they may face yet another two-year pay freeze? I asked those on the Government Benches to rule this out last week. I got no answer, so I ask them again today: will they rule out a pay freeze for NHS staff?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right to highlight the amazing work that our NHS and social care workforce have done throughout this pandemic, as they do every year, and I pay tribute to them for that. As he will know, the NHS agrees with its staff multi-year pay deals set by independent recommendations, and we continue with that process.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

If he will allocate additional funding to local authorities to support the roll-out of lateral flow covid-19 testing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

What progress his Department has made on building new hospitals.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

On 2 October, £3.7 billion-worth of funding was confirmed for 40 new hospitals, with a further eight schemes invited to bid for future funding, to deliver a total of 48 hospitals by 2030. Four in the programme are already in construction, and three others have commenced early, enabling works on site. The hospital building programme is, of course, in addition to significant upgrades to 20 hospitals, which will be complete by March 2024, and is part of a wider programme of investment.

[Philip Dunne [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications, and I obviously welcome this programme, but before he came into office, in March 2018, his Department allocated £312 million for a major capital programme at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford. Now that an independent reconfiguration panel has confirmed that these decisions were properly made and should proceed, the trust is seeking approval from his Department for advance of funds for enabling work by architects, structural engineers and others. Can he confirm when this requested £6.3 million will be forthcoming?

[Edward Argar]

I am pleased to confirm to my right hon. Friend, a distinguished predecessor of mine in this office, at this Dispatch Box that £6 million-worth of funding has been approved in principle, allowing Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust to develop its plans and produce a business case for this scheme. The Department will continue to work closely with the trust to understand how the right support can be provided centrally to develop an affordable case for the overall scheme and to maximise the impact of this funding, and I will be writing to my right hon. Friend with more detail later today.

[Stephen Hammond]

The independent reconfiguration panel overwhelmingly backed the plans for the development at the Epsom and St Helier trust; does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should take away the threat of a judicial review and allow this investment to take place so that my constituents and the constituents of south-west London can benefit from greater access and better-quality healthcare?

[Edward Argar]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently gave these plans the green light following independent advice from the IRP, and I am pleased that this will mean my hon. Friend’s constituents and, indeed, many others will benefit from a new state-of-the-art NHS hospital in Sutton. Patients and the public will now be engaged in shaping the detail of the new services; I encourage all local people to participate positively in that process and the council and others to get behind that scheme and that record investment by this Government in his area.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on reducing the economic effect of the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the provision of non-covid-19 healthcare treatment.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

The Government are supporting the NHS’s ambition to continue to restore elective services for non-covid patients, while of course recognising the pressure on services from covid-19 infection control, with September statistics showing services already restored to about 80% of last year’s levels. Some £2.9 billion of additional funding has been made available from 1 October to manage ongoing covid-19 pressures, alongside recovering non-covid activity levels.

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Given the difficulties faced by the NHS because of covid-19, what considerations are being given to additional initiatives or the management of existing resources to address patient demand and break the backlog of non-covid-related treatments, such as diagnostic interventions for cancer?

[Edward Argar]

The NHS is working hard to maintain elective activity as far as possible during the second wave with extra funding, as has been set out. As shown in published September data, hospitals are carrying out more than 1 million routine appointments and operations per week, with around three times the levels of elective patients admitted to hospitals than in April, with many hospitals innovating to get through their lists. For example, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and West Berkshire sustainability and transformation partnership has set up additional bespoke cataract units to deliver services. In addition, we have been making use of independent sector sites to assist the NHS with almost 1 million NHS patient appointments taking place within those facilities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

One adverse consequence of the first lockdown was that many people failed to seek treatment because they were afraid of the virus, but due to good planning and hard work, the staff of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital are able to treat covid patients while still undertaking the normal work of the hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Broadland should continue to seek medical assistance when they need it, confident in the knowledge that it will be provided in a covid-safe and effective manner?

[Edward Argar]

I share my hon. Friend’s fulsome praise of the staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and the work that they are doing. They have a strong champion in him. Indeed, I pay tribute to all the health and social care staff who have worked so magnificently throughout the pandemic. I can wholeheartedly agree with everything he says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear throughout this pandemic that anyone who needs medical help should continue to seek it in the knowledge that they will be treated in a safe and effective manner appropriate to their needs. To put it bluntly, it is a case of help us to help you.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

For cancer care, we are still dealing with the backlog from the first wave, but we are now hearing of treatments being cancelled during the second wave. Extremely vulnerable immuno-compromised cancer patients need covid-free wards and staff need regular testing. Similar backlogs to the first wave could be the difference between life and death. I ask this at every Health questions but am yet to receive a persuasive answer. What will the Government do differently in order to restore cancer services?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who always asks measured and sensible questions. He is right to ask that particular question, but I am very happy for him to raise with me any specific incidents of where urgent cancer care is being cancelled in the current situation. We have worked extremely hard, as has the NHS, to ensure that treatments such as that and emergency and urgent treatment can continue. He asked what we are doing differently. We have learned a huge amount, as has the whole country, over the past six to nine months. We have increased capacity in our hospitals, which is why, with the measures that we have taken, we can continue far more surgery and far more treatments, particularly cancer treatments, than we could in the first wave.

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, we do finish at quarter past 12, so I will start topical questions, slightly late, with Steve McCabe.

Smokefree England: Covid-19 and PHE Abolition

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to appear opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). It is happening with regularity: three times on three different days last week and again today. Indeed, it is happening with a fair degree of regularity that I am speaking in front of you in this Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is always a pleasure.

I thank all hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate with typically well-informed and important speeches. As the shadow Minister has alluded to, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), within whose portfolio this matter would normally fall, has been taking a simultaneous debate in Westminster Hall, so it is a rare pleasure for me to be able to speak at the Dispatch Box on this matter.

I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, I think this is her first debate in her name in this Chamber, and, consistent with the principled approach that she adopts in this place to raising issues that she passionately cares about, she has done that today, and I pay tribute to her for doing that.



We should all recognise the significant achievements made on tobacco control over the past two decades through cross-party working. In that context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, while I may not agree with everything that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair did, it is right that I recognise and pay tribute to him for his work in this space when he was leading the country. Smoking rates are now at their lowest ever level in England and the UK, and that is a great public health success story.

However, as Members have highlighted powerfully, there is no room for complacency. Smoking still causes more than 78,000 deaths each year, and there is much more still to do, which is why we announced our smokefree 2030 ambition. As Members will know, the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Our commitment to tough tobacco control will continue after 1 January 2021. We laid the Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 on 28 September to reaffirm that commitment, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North and I debated recently.

The covid-19 pandemic, as we well know, has put a huge strain on our health and care system. The Government have published guidance regarding covid-19 and the risks from smoking, so this debate is very timely. The message has been clear that quitting smoking will improve a person’s health and recovery prospects if they are unfortunate enough to contract covid-19. It is important that we recognise the great work of local authorities—I will come to that later—and the NHS, along with the third sector, in their support to help smokers quit during these exceptionally challenging times. They have ensured that stop smoking services have continued and used the opportunity of the pandemic to reach out to more smokers to encourage them to quit. I thank them for the work they have done and continue to do.

Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that around 1 million smokers may have made a quit attempt during the pandemic, and that is good news. The Government have provided funding to support ASH’s “Today is the Day” campaign, to enable the stop smoking message to reach as many smokers as possible in some of the most deprived areas, and I pay tribute to ASH for its work. Public Health England’s Better Health Stoptober annual campaign has also continued at a national and local level to support people quitting during the pandemic.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his speech, which brought an important perspective from Northern Ireland to this issue. He mentioned two things that I want to pick up on. He asked whether I would engage with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, on this issue. Although this comes under the portfolio of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, I am due to talk to Robin Swann next week about other matters, so I will endeavour to shoehorn it into the conversation in the way that the hon. Gentleman so elegantly does with a number of topics in this Chamber in various debates. I thank and pay tribute to Robin Swann for all the work he is doing in partnership with us at this difficult time.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the role of Ofcom. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is due to respond in the Adjournment debate, is very near to the Chamber, if not present at this moment, and I suspect he will have heard the points made by the hon. Gentleman and will reflect on those in his work.

The Government are committed to levelling up society to ensure that no communities get left behind. That is why we announced our bold ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030 in the prevention Green Paper consultation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for rightly highlighting the importance of this being a cross-party issue, which typifies the approach that he takes to these matters in the House.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who was an incredibly effective public health Minister. He is missed in that role and in Government, and I hope one day he will return to the Dispatch Box. He played a hugely important role in drawing up the current tobacco control plan for England. He also gave us some very good tips on how to speed up delivery within our excellent civil service if a Minister decides that he wants to accelerate clearance and implementation of a policy. The recent prevention Green Paper highlighted the urgency of tackling disproportionate smoking rate harms in deprived areas, which the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Blaydon highlighted. The Green Paper also highlighted the disproportionate smoking harm rates among the LGBT community, pregnant women and those with mental health conditions, which again goes to points that hon. Members made. I will endeavour to address those in just a moment.

In terms of that tobacco control plan, the points made about what happened last time and the fear of a gap, I reassure Members who highlighted the need for no gaps and for continuity that it is something of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds is very much aware. I know she would want me to reassure the House that she is working extremely hard on ensuring that effective measures and effective planning continue to be in place to address the challenges of smoking. Smoking, as has been alluded to, is one of the biggest behavioural drivers of health inequality in England and reduces life expectancy by 10 years on average. That accounts for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest, which again Members have made very clear.

Turning to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Blaydon, although rates for smoking in pregnancy are the lowest recorded, they remain around 10%. Clearly she is right to highlight that that must remain a concern for all of us in government, in this House and in this country. More needs to be done to reach our national ambition of a rate of 6% for smoking in pregnancy by the end of 2022.

Public Health England continues to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on their long-term planning commitments to offer all patients NHS-funded treatment services over the coming years, including a new smokefree pathway for expectant mothers and their partners. I am confident that progress will continue to be made to hit that target, but I know from experience that the hon. Lady, in her typically courteous but firm way, will continue to hold Ministers to account in achieving that.

[Steve Brine]

While we are on the subject, as the song goes:

“The saddest thing that I’d ever seen / Were smokers outside the hospital doors”—

name the band. It is not a national problem, but it is a big problem in some areas, which is why I made the point to the Minister—will he convey this to the public health Minister?— that it has to be a regional and local approach through the directors of public health. It is a much bigger problem in some towns than it is in others.

[Edward Argar]

I will not seek to outdo my hon. Friend in his knowledge of music or, possibly, his expertise in this area, but I will certainly convey that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds.

Alongside tackling smoking in pregnancy, a big challenge is to reduce smoking rates in those with mental health problems, as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, which remain significantly higher than the general population at 42%. The NHS long-term plan will also offer a new universal smoking cessation offer, available as part of specialist mental health services for long-term users of those services and in learning disability services. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) will be looking into that, working in close partnership with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, because it is important that we have a joined-up approach. The hon. Member for Blaydon highlighted in her speech the excellent practice in some parts of the country and in some parts of the NHS and the fact that that is not replicated everywhere, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. It is important that we level up, to coin a phrase, across the country in using and sharing that best practice.

The Government are committed to a smokefree 2030, and we are developing the plans to ensure that is a reality. The plans will build on the good work already under way in the tobacco control plan and the commitments being delivered in the NHS long-term plan, to which, while the pandemic has obviously impacted on the NHS, we remain committed.

I said in my introduction that the UK is a world leader in tobacco control. That is demonstrated by how seriously the Government take our obligations as a signatory and party to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, the FCTC. Tackling the harms caused by smoking is a global effort, with 8 million deaths a year worldwide linked to tobacco, 80% of which are low and middle-income country deaths.

The Government have invested up to £15 million in official development assistance funding to support the WHO’s FCTC 2030 five-year project, supporting up to 24 countries to improve their tobacco control and improve their population’s health. The project has received considerable praise from global public health and development communities and helped to raise the UK’s profile and strengthen our global reach. I am proud to say that the Department recently received a UN Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases award for 2020 for the project. The project is in its final year and we are considering plans to extend it, depending on the Department’s spending review settlement for official development assistance. In a second, I shall address the point about the spending review raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham—I shall be very brief, as I am conscious that I need to leave a couple of minutes for her to reply at the end.

We continue to review the evidence on e-cigarettes, including their harms and usefulness in aiding smoking cessation. Although they are not risk-free, there is growing evidence that they can help people stop smoking, and they are particularly effective when combined with expert support from a local stop smoking service. The Government’s approach to the regulation of e-cigarettes has been and will remain pragmatic and evidence-based. The current regulatory framework aims to reduce the risk of harm to children, protect against the re-normalisation of tobacco use, provide assurance on relative safety for users and provide legal certainty for businesses. We will continue our work to appraise the evidence on new products, including e-cigarettes, and their role in helping smokers quit.

I note comments about proposals for future regulatory changes to help smokers quit smoking. Post transition period, this country will no longer have to comply with the EU’s tobacco products directive, and there will be opportunities to consider in the future regulatory changes that can help people quit smoking and address the harms from tobacco. Although there are no current plans for divergence, I would reassure the House that any future changes will be based on robust evidence in the interests of public health and will maintain this country’s ambitious and world-leading approach in this area.

The Department will be carrying out a post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the standardised packaging of tobacco products by 20 May 2021 to see whether the regulations have met their objectives. Part of this review process will involve a public consultation to start before the end of the year for people to submit their views and evidence, and I hope that gives some greater clarity about timescales.

The Department has already conducted another post-implementation review and public consultation on various tobacco legislation, as the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned, and we will publish a Government response shortly. I understand that the aim is to do so before the end of this year, although obviously a lot of work is being put into tackling the pandemic.

I hear what Members have said about the importance of public health grants and local authorities. Like the shadow Minister, I am a former cabinet member for public health. He would not, I suspect, like me to be tempted to try to fulfil the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by pre-empting the spending review. As for Public Health England and the future, we are engaging with stakeholders and will consider the best future arrangements for the wide range of non-health protection functions that currently sit in PHE. Our commitment to smokefree 2030 and to working collaboratively to maintain our ambitious agenda and our high standards in this area is undiminished; indeed, it is enhanced.

Covid-19

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Last Wednesday, this House came together to vote in favour of a new time-limited set of national restrictions across England—our strategy to suppress the virus, support the economy, education and our NHS until a vaccine can be deployed, and in doing so, to ensure that the NHS was not overwhelmed. It is clear that, in tackling this virus, there are no easy or simple choices for anyone. While Members may differ in the perspective they take on what is the right balance to strike, as we would expect in our open and vibrant democracy, it is important to say that it is clear that all Members of this House share a common objective, which is to beat this disease and see our country flourish once again. As Members will know, I entirely respect and recognise the sincerity and strength of feeling of all Members of this House on this most difficult issue, irrespective of the stance they take on it.

Difficult though they are, entailing further sacrifices, the steps that this Government and this House took last week were the right ones, because the alternative of not acting would have been far worse. Throughout this pandemic, we have always sought to base our decisions on evidence, data and scientific advice, but we must also recognise that this is a disease about which we have learnt more every day and about which we knew nothing a year or so ago. Throughout, we have always been willing, and we must remain willing, to reflect on and adapt to changing scientific evidence and scientific debate and to move with that debate.

The evidence we faced last week before the Prime Minister’s announcement was stark and changing rapidly: an R rate above 1 in every region and more than 100 cases per 100,000 of the population. The data indicated that the number of people in acute hospital beds in England was due to exceed NHS surge capacity in the forthcoming weeks and, in some hospitals, the number of patients was already higher than at the peak of the first wave. For me, one thing was abundantly clear: our NHS was at risk of seeing demand exceed capacity if nothing was done.

There was a sharp acceleration in infections in September and October, as was the case across Europe and, as we know, many of those infections lead to hospitalisation further down the line, with a roughly two-week lag. As Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, recently set out, at the start of September, there were around 500 people hospitalised with covid. By the start of October, there were around 2,000 people hospitalised with covid and, by the start of November, that figure had sharply increased to around 11,000.

We were already at the point where hospitals were becoming very busy, and that was before the normal winter and flu-related demand. It appears that, with the new treatments that are being developed, more people are likely to walk out of hospital after treatment than sadly was the case during the first wave, and I am thankful for that, as I am sure the entire House is, but the fact remains that those people still need hospital treatment. Each day the R rate remains above 1 is another day that cases rise, with more hospital admissions, more patients deprived of other types of care and, tragically, more deaths.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the impact on hospitals. Does he agree that the knock-on impact on elective surgeries and care and treatment in our hospitals means that unless we keep the coronavirus rate under control, we could see other people with non-covid illnesses being adversely impacted in this wave of the pandemic as they were in the first wave? Indeed, in my constituency, we saw a 26% increase in deaths from non-covid illnesses in the first nine months of this year.

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In taking the action we are to protect the NHS, we are of course also seeking to suppress the number of people who need hospitalisations to maintain the availability of those hospital beds for other people in dire need, exactly as she alludes to. I have to say to those who question the impact of this disease or its seriousness when someone gets it that I am reminded—as I suspect other Members will be—of the extraordinary dignity and suffering of the Lewis family in the Rhondda, who were on “Channel 4 News” and various news outlets last week. Mr Lewis had lost his wife and his two sons in under a week to this disease. It was a truly dreadful story, and I have never seen a more dignified man than Mr Lewis when he was talking about it.

The latest R rate is between 1.1 and 1.3, so it was essential to take action to protect our NHS and to enable us, as my right hon. Friend said, to maintain vital services for those without covid that sadly had to be paused in the first wave. From the Dispatch Box, I would like to take the opportunity once again—every time we are here it is right we do it—to thank all our staff in the NHS and care sectors for the incredible work they have done and continue to do in the face of these unprecedented challenges.

As I have set out, the virus remains a serious threat. We recorded more than 20,000 positive cases yesterday. Average daily hospital admissions currently stand at 1,366 and, sadly, yesterday we recorded more than 500 deaths—the highest death toll since mid-May. It is a painful reminder that the real battles are not in fact fought here in this Chamber, but in our hospitals up and down the country and by those who are suffering from fighting this dreadful disease. But in this Chamber, there are steps we can take that I believe will help them in that battle, and I believe that we were therefore right to act as we did.

Despite the seriousness of our current situation, these measures are time-limited. They legally expire 28 days after they were passed by the House—on 2 December. At that point, we will look to return to the tiered system, using local and regional data and trends to determine our response and adapt to local needs.

The measures in place are also quite different from last time. Schools and universities rightly remain open to avoid further disruption to education. People can establish childcare bubbles, take unlimited exercise and meet one person from a different household outside. More than that, however difficult it has been, I believe that we as a nation have made huge strides to better overcome the challenges that these measures bring. However, I am acutely aware that for many people in our country any restrictions are still incredibly difficult, especially this second time around. They are difficult for our NHS and care home staff, who have shown such resilience but still face a difficult winter ahead; for the families who have not been able to see their loved ones and once again cannot meet them in the ways they would wish to; and for individuals who live alone and are still, despite support bubbles, having to cope with the challenges posed by these restrictions.

It has also, of course, been an especially tough time for the businesses that have had to close their doors just as they were coming back, and that is why we are providing an unprecedented package of economic measures, with more than £200 billion of financial support since March to protect lives and livelihoods in every region and nation of the United Kingdom. The package was recently described by the International Monetary Fund as

“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.

Of course I feel deeply for those businesses and individuals, and I appreciate the position they find themselves in, especially when they have done all they can to do the right thing. That was why it was important to extend the furlough scheme and to provide further support in extending the scheme for the self-employed.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Of course it is right that the furlough scheme and the support for the self-employed should be reinstated at the levels they were in March, but the Minister will know—everyone will know—that there are a great many people in our country who did not qualify for the furlough scheme or the self-employed scheme or whose businesses did not qualify for grants at the start and still do not. May I take this opportunity to remind him that a great many people in this country are still without financial support and will find it increasingly difficult to make it through the coming weeks and months? Will he take that message back to his colleagues across the Government?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he makes his points, which is, as ever, measured and reasonable. As I have said, I entirely understand—as anyone in this House will, from looking at their own casework and their constituents’ letters—the situations that some people still find themselves in, despite the unprecedented package of support that has been put in place. I know that he would not expect me to speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I know that my right hon. Friend will have heard the point that he has made. Indeed, other Members of this House have made it on other occasions on behalf of their constituents.

This tough emotional and economic toll is why we are determined to make every day count in our battle against the virus. Our NHS has been preparing for this second wave for months, and as we move into winter, it is better prepared than before, with 30,000 ventilators and billions of items of PPE, mostly made here at home. In that context, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has done so much, as the Minister with responsibility for this area, to ensure that we have the PPE that we need at this time. There are also over 13,000 more nurses and almost 8,000 more doctors, and £450 million is being spent as we speak to further upgrade accident and emergency departments. There is increased capacity in our hospitals, and the Nightingales are standing ready as an insurance policy.

What is more, we know more about the virus than before. We know how we can better stop it and how we can better treat it. We have therefore strengthened infection control procedures and, as a result, we are driving down hospital-acquired infections. We have also improved clinical techniques, and I pay tribute to the clinicians and scientists who have driven these developments. As a result, the number of people surviving covid in hospital is up, as I said earlier. But of course, an increase in survival rates means that the pressure on NHS beds remains high. Equally concerning to the House will be the toll this disease takes not just on immediate physical health but on mental health. Our medical community is also working hard to understand the impact of so-called long covid and the potential for long-term chronic conditions resulting from the illness, even when people may have felt they were unaffected when they had it.

In social care, too, we have rightly taken important steps to protect people in care and those who care for them. Our social care winter plan, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, strengthens protections in social care, including on the provision of PPE, regular testing and updated systems for safe discharge. Those will be crucial in the months to come. She recently set out the latest guidance for care home visits, which sought to strike the incredibly difficult balance on providing vital protections for the health and wellbeing of our most vulnerable people, while protecting the people who work there and seeking to allow those vital family visits.

We have also built the largest testing capacity of any country in Europe. From an almost standing start in the spring, we have conducted some 34 million tests so far, and yesterday our polymerase chain reaction testing capacity stood at 504,491. More than 10 million people in the UK have been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is approaching 20 million downloads. In Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool, we are piloting cutting-edge lateral flow tests, which can deliver a result on infection in just 15 minutes. Starting yesterday, we are rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, using a range of testing technologies so that we can better seek to keep both staff and patients safe. On Monday, the Secretary of State wrote to 67 directors of public health who had an expressed an interest to him to make 10,000 tests immediately available to other areas across the country and to make lateral flow tests available for local officials and devolved Administrations according to local needs, at a rate of 10% of their population per week.

Those bold new steps are a key weapon in our battle against the virus, but of course I know that the hopes of the nation are, understandably, pinned on the possibility of a safe and effective vaccine. That felt another step closer on Monday, as we all welcomed the announcement from Pfizer and BioNTech of a vaccine that they state is more than 90% effective. As an early mover, the UK has already secured 40 million doses of that vaccine. It is important to note that it is just one of many vaccines in development, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that are yet to report phase 3 results. I always seek to sound a note of caution at this Dispatch Box and in the media, and it is important that I echo the words of caution from the Secretary of State yesterday: the full safety data for the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available, and our regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Secretary of State will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe. This is a promising step forward, but we must remain cautious. So until we can roll out a proven vaccine, we must continue to follow the existing rules of “hands, face, space” because this remains a deadly virus.

In closing, let me say that in recent months this country has faced some tough and challenging times. We continue to face tough and challenging times, and many up and down our country have made huge sacrifices and continue to do so, be they individuals, families or businesses. I pay tribute to them all. There are no easy solutions, but we have risen to and beaten such challenges in the past, although different ones, and we can do so again, through a unity of spirit, by coming together as a country and by our shared determination to do the right thing. The recent announcement of a potential vaccine offers hope for the future, and while we pursue that prospect at speed, our greatest strength lies in the common sense, determination and resilience of the people of our great country. I am convinced that, with that and together, we will beat this dreadful disease.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Justin Madders, and to help Members plan a little better, let me say that the time limit will come in after Sir Desmond Swayne, who sits fifth on the call list. So Members who are between five and 10 on the list will have five minutes, and those after 10 will have four minutes. The time limit may be reduced later on, depending on what Dame Rosie Winterton wishes to do.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.

This instrument concerns food and feed laws and is made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations. It follows from the 17 EU exit instruments in the field of food and food safety made in 2019, which, for brevity, I will refer to collectively as the 2019 regulations. The Government’s priority and commitment is to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country continues to be maintained now that the UK has left the European Union and going forward beyond the end of the transition period.

I must briefly draw the House’s attention to two technical corrections to the original statutory instrument, which were noticed after the SI was laid and have been rectified by means of a correction slip. The corrections, for the benefit of the House, are as follows. First, in page 1, regulation 1(2) previously read:

“Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.

It is corrected to clarify that:

“This Part, Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.

Secondly, in page 12, regulation 10(13), in the inserted regulation 20A(b)(i), “may made regulations” has, for the benefit of good grammar, been corrected to read, “may make regulations”. I confirm that officials in the devolved Administrations have been kept informed of these minor typographical changes.

As the instrument is technical in nature, I am sure that hon. Members will welcome a very brief summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making. The 2019 regulations were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union and will come into force at the end of the transition period. They will ensure that the regulatory framework for food and feed remains functional throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period. They achieve that by making technical amendments to EU food and feed legislation, such as changing EU-specific references that will be redundant on exit day, and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations, reflecting the context in which they were made—preparing for all possible scenarios in leaving the EU. However, the withdrawal agreement was of course secured and, with it, the Northern Ireland protocol.

On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. The primary purpose of this instrument is to provide necessary amendments to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in the field of food and food safety, by amending or revoking the 2019 regulations to apply to Great Britain only. The instrument gives effect to the protocol by ensuring retained EU law on food and feed applies only to Great Britain. It does so by removing references to Northern Ireland authorities and revoking corrections previously made to Northern Ireland domestic legislation in the 2019 regulations. EU food and feed legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol.

For example, the functions currently undertaken by the European Commission to review and make changes to legislation were assigned by the 2019 regulations to the appropriate authority, those being the relevant Secretary of State in England or the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To implement the Northern Ireland protocol, it is now necessary to amend the definition of appropriate authority in retained EU law to remove references to Northern Ireland.

The secondary purpose of the instrument is to remedy deficiencies and inoperabilities in retained EU food and feed legislation, in particular arising from that which has come into force since the 2019 regulations were made, but which we are obliged to treat as retained law. The amendments are technical in nature—for example, removing references to the EU and its institutions, which will no longer be appropriate following the end of the transition period.

The amendments include, for example, specific food hygiene regulations consolidating provisions allowing for the words “United Kingdom” or the abbreviations UK or GB to be used in identification marks. Similar amendments to general food law will allow a period of 21 months after the end of the transition period for products of animal origin carrying a UK/EC identification mark to be placed on the English market. That measure should reduce the impact of the change in requirements for identification marks. Similar provision is expected to be introduced in Wales and Scotland.

Let me be clear that the instrument does not introduce any changes that will impact on the day-to-day operation of food businesses, nor does it introduce any new regulatory burden. The essence of the legislation is unchanged. The instrument will ensure continuity for businesses and protection of consumers’ interests by ensuring that the statute remains operable and enforceable. It provides confidence in the ability to trade both domestically and internationally.

The amendments take account of the Government’s commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol and make changes that allow Northern Ireland goods to be manufactured to the EU standard while retaining protections for all UK consumers.

A public consultation on the statutory instrument was held in August. We remain grateful to the stakeholders who responded, with the majority supportive of the approach to give effect to the protocol in the legislation and of the amendments to retained EU legislation. It is important to note that the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for the instrument and we have engaged with them positively throughout. I put on record my gratitude.

I take this opportunity to reassure the House that the overarching aim of the statutory instrument is to provide continuity for business to ensure that, following the end of the transition period, high standards of safety and quality for food and feed regulation will continue across the UK, and to reflect our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. Having effective and functional law in this area is key to ensuring that the standards of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained in the immediate and long term. I ask hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in the instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to hon. Members for a typically informed and focused debate. It is a pleasure, as always, appearing opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), a different shadow Minister from my normal double act in recent weeks. He raised a number of technical points about the consultation and other aspects. I will endeavour to answer them briefly, but where I do not do so I will, of course, write to him.

I am confident that the consultation undertaken in August and September was sufficient. The hon. Gentleman highlights the smaller number of responses it received. I suggest that is due to the significant consultation undertaken two years before and the fact that in this context little in our approach has changed. Many will therefore have felt that they had had their say back then and that was reflected in the approach taken. He mentioned local councils’ capacity to deal with these regulations. Like many Members of this House, I was a councillor in a past life and I pay tribute to the work that our councils and local authorities do up and down this country. I am confident that they will be able to implement these regulations effectively. On the FSA and FSS, I am also confident that they are ready and prepared for what is coming in these regulations, which are relatively minor and technical in what they are seeking to update. I will of course go through the transcript in Hansard and write to him on anything I have missed out.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can reassure him that, while the wording of this statutory instrument reflects the technical legal wording to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement and the measures in that to help protect and secure the safety of the peace process, I am happy to be very clear with him on the record in this Chamber that, of course, Northern Ireland remains a hugely important and integral part of our United Kingdom and one that I hope to be able to visit when travel is a bit more normal. I may even visit his constituency of Strangford.

[Jim Shannon]

I would welcome the Minister to my constituency. One of his former members of staff came from my constituency as well. It will be a double opportunity for him to visit the town of Comber and also my constituency. I would welcome seeing him there.

[Edward Argar]

I will take that as a clear invitation. Sam Beggs who was a fantastic member of staff to both the hon. Gentleman and I always sang the praises of Strangford. I need no more than the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to take him up on it when travel is more normal.

Question put and agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will suspend the House for three minutes.

Exiting the European Union

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we shall take the following motions:

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

That the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

[Edward Argar]

Today we debate four sets of regulations that are critical in giving effect to the Northern Ireland protocol for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells, including reproductive cells.

All hon. Members would agree that donated blood, organs, tissues and cells play a vital role in life-changing treatments for UK patients, whether blood transfusions to treat major blood loss, heart transplants to treat heart failure, stem cell transplants to treat blood cancer, or eggs and sperm to treat infertility. Patients rely on those treatments every day. Many people would not be alive today were it not for the generosity of donors and their families, and I pay tribute to them.

The UK has always set high standards of safety and quality for blood, organs, tissues and cells, and those standards will always be of the utmost importance to this Government. The current safety and quality standards for blood, organs, tissues and cells are derived from EU law. Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made four statutory instruments to fix shortcomings in the current law caused by EU exit. These were made on a UK-wide basis and will come into effect on 1 January 2021. The 2019 statutory instruments maintain the current safety and quality standards across the UK. On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. We are committed to meeting these obligations, all the while recognising the unique status of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

These four instruments will come into force on 1 January 2021. They will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to be aligned with the EU blood, organs, tissues and cells directives, as required by the protocol. In particular, first, although the safety and quality standards will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021, for Northern Ireland those standards may be expressed by reference to EU legislation, whereas for Great Britain they are not. Secondly, the UK regulators for blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to act as the competent authorities for Northern Ireland in respect of the EU. That means that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will continue to meet the same EU obligations for Northern Ireland as they do now.

Thirdly, these instruments amend the definition of “third country” for imports into Northern Ireland to ensure that we meet the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol but also our commitment to unfettered access. That means that, from 1 January 2021, when establishments in Northern Ireland receive blood, organs, tissues and cells from Great Britain, they will need to treat them the same as those received from outside the EU. In accordance with our commitment to unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, there will be no changes to the requirements when sending blood, organs, tissues and cells from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The movement of blood, organs, tissues and cells around the UK is critical for patient treatment, and we are committed to ensuring that this movement can continue from 1 January 2021.

Fourthly, these instruments will require tissue establishments in Northern Ireland to continue using the single European code for traceability purposes, as they do now. Fifthly, the 2019 statutory instruments introduced some limited regulation-making powers into UK law for each of the UK nations. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 contains the powers needed to make changes in relation to safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells for Northern Ireland. The powers in the 2019 statutory instruments are therefore no longer needed for Northern Ireland, and consequently, these regulations limit that regulation-making power to Great Britain. These instruments also make minor corrections to the 2019 statutory instruments to change references to “exit day” to read “implementation period completion day”, so that the regulations will function effectively at the end of the transition period.

The regulators for the sector are working with licensed establishments across the UK to help ensure that they are ready for any changes that will arise from 1 January 2021. These changes affect only a small number of establishments in Northern Ireland—one blood establishment, one transplant centre, two licensed tissue establishments and four fertility clinics. There will be some minor administrative costs for establishments in Great Britain moving blood, organs, tissues and cells to Northern Ireland.

Legislative competence for the donation, processing and use in treatment of human reproductive cells remains reserved to this Parliament. Competence in respect of all other human tissues, cells, blood and organs is devolved, and the relevant instruments are being made on a UK-wide basis with the consent of the devolved Administrations, for which I am grateful. There is work under way to put in place a common framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to support co-ordinated decision making in the future on the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells after the end of the transition period.

To conclude, these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is essential that they are made, to allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK has high standards for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells. These instruments ensure that the UK will continue to work to those high standards after the end of the transition period and that blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to move around the UK from 1 January 2021. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

As the shadow Minister alluded to, it always a pleasure, and an increasingly frequent one, to appear opposite him in dealing with delegated legislation. He is of course a fellow east midlands MP, which only adds to the pleasure of appearing opposite him. He raised a couple of broad issues, and then I will come to some of the specific points that he made. As ever, if I omit to answer something, I will endeavour to write to him so that he has that on the record.

The shadow Minister asked about our intention to implement the Northern Ireland protocol and the regulations relating to it in good time. The fact that this is the third piece of delegated legislation relating to the implementation of the protocol that he and I have dealt with on consecutive days is a reflection of our commitment to getting on with it and bringing forward those regulations. We are doing that with his co-operation, for which I am very grateful.

The shadow Minister talked about a negotiated deal. It will not surprise him to hear—he has heard this twice already this week—that the UK Government continue to negotiate with the European Union, and it would be wrong for me to prejudge, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, the outcome of those ongoing negotiations.

The shadow Minister asked a number of specific questions. He made a point about the divergence of regulations, either now or in the future. As my noble Friend Lord Bethell said in the House of Lords, on divergence from existing EU regulations:

“There may be at an appropriate point in the future an opportunity for the department to review whether the UK’s exit from the EU offers us opportunities to reappraise current regulations to ensure that we continue to protect the nation’s health. When that moment arrives, we will consult, analyse and assess. The regulations put in place the opportunity to do that—but that is for a moment in the future and it is not envisaged in the near future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC238.]

On the previous pieces of delegated legislation we have considered, I have highlighted the UK Government’s intent to continue to be world-leading on the issues that we have been dealing with on these three consecutive days.

The shadow Minister mentioned the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which is currently going through the other place. As drafted, it will allow us to strengthen the requirements governing the use of human tissues and the development of medicines. Were it deemed necessary and appropriate to do so, powers under clauses 1 and 2 would enable us to introduce new requirements to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 for medicines manufactured using human tissues. I look forward to the passage of that Bill through the other place and its becoming law in due course. I am confident that it will be in place in good time.

The shadow Minister asked about the movement of blood and blood components, which is a hugely important issue. As he is aware, the UK is largely self-sufficient in the supply of blood and blood components, and it occasionally exports rare blood cells, although fewer than 10 units per year to EU and non-EU countries. Components are frequently shared across the four nations to meet need and clinical demand, and I believe that these regulations clearly ensure that that flow is not interrupted.

On that theme, traffic between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will remain, as it will between Great Britain and the European Union. To give the shadow Minister further reassurance, I am glad to confirm that Northern Ireland will align with the EU, but we are committed to finding a way to work closely with it within the UK common framework, which is currently being developed, to ensure that that trade continues unhindered. He may even have mentioned these figures himself. Between April 2019 and March 2020, the UK exported 13 organs to the EU and imported 13 organs from it. Although those numbers may seem low, each and every one of those organs is vital to the individual receiving it. I am committed to maintaining the freedom of movement of those organs.

Working with industry is a theme that the shadow Minister picked up in others of these delegated legislation sessions. We have already published some guidance, and we look forward to publishing more. We believe that it is absolutely vital that we work with industry to make sure it has all the information and support it needs to make a seamless transition to the new regulations.

It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. We missed him for a week or two when he was self-isolating, and the place was not the same without him, so it is a real pleasure to have him back. As ever, he spoke movingly and powerfully of the importance of these regulations in what they do to save lives. I hope I can offer him some reassurance, although the point he raised was a very technical one. He is right to say that that point is not explicitly mentioned in these regulations. I hope that that gives him some reassurance, but if it is helpful to him, particularly in the light of his constituents’ concerns, I or a fellow Minister will undertake to write to him with further clarification, so that he has that on record. With that, I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Human Fertilisation and Embryology)

Resolved,

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)

Exiting the European Union (Human Tissue)

Resolved,

That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)

Resolved,

That the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)