Public Health

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is right, and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground. This hope for the weeks ahead does not, however, take away from the serious and immediate threat posed now, and I wish to turn to what is in the regulations and the actions we need to take.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that one in 50 of the population has the disease, some with symptoms and some without. The latest figures show that we have 30,074 covid patients in UK hospitals and that the NHS is under significant pressure. Admissions are now higher than at any point in the pandemic, and so on Monday all four UK chief medical officers recommended that we move the country to covid-19 alert level 5. In practice, that means that they believe that without action there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed. It is for that reason that we have placed England into a national lockdown, alongside action taken in each of the devolved nations. Every single citizen needs to take steps to control this new variant, and this personal responsibility is important. To give the NHS a fighting chance to do its vital work of saving lives, it is on all of us to support it.

The regulations set out that everyone must stay at home save for a limited number of reasons permitted in law, including: essential shopping; work, if it cannot reasonably be done from home; education or childcare if eligible to attend; medical needs, including getting a covid test or getting vaccinated; exercise; escaping domestic abuse; and for support bubbles where people are eligible. These regulations are based on the existing tier 4 regulations, with some additional measures that reinforce the stay-at-home imperative.

These include: stopping the sale of alcohol through takeaway or click and collect services; and closing sport and leisure facilities, although allowing playgrounds and allotments to remain open. I know that these further restrictions are difficult, but, unfortunately, they are necessary, because we must minimise social interaction to get this virus back under control. These measures came into force first thing this morning under the emergency procedure and will remain in force subject to the approval of this House today.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just been talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) who is a doctor. He showed me the ridiculous form that he has had to fill in to be able to give this simple jab—all this diversity and equality training. When he is inoculating an old lady, he is not going to ask her whether she has come into contact with jihadis or whatever. The Secretary of State must cut through all this bureaucratic rubbish.

[Matt Hancock]

I am a man after my hon. Friend’s heart. I can tell the House that we have removed a series of unnecessary training modules that had been put in place, including fire safety, terrorism and others. I will write to him with the full panoply of training that is not required and that we have been able to remove. We made this change as of this morning, and I am glad to say that it is now in force. I am a fan of busting bureaucracy, and in this case I agree that it is not necessary to undertake anti-terrorism training in order to inject a vaccine.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

No.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), may I thank the Secretary of State for meeting us and for promising that he will adopt a more granular approach? We can assure him that we will work hard in Lincolnshire to try to get our tier, and that of the neighbouring cities, down. May I also thank him and the Prime Minister for resisting pressure from the Opposition and from Wales and Scotland to change the rules on Christmas? That is an entirely right approach. I also thank him for the tone that he has adopted today that, if we are to defeat this, it is a matter of self-responsibility and personal ownership of our health.

Breast Cancer Screening

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate. As he and many Members know, breast health—diagnosis, treatment and research, as well as screening—is a matter that is close to my heart. I am honoured to respond on this important issue on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of women and the 3% of men who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year.

I want to state clearly that screening services are back up and that the availability of breast screening to everyone who needs it is there. However, the recovery of those services from the disruption this year is not only a priority for me, but an enormous challenge, for exactly the reasons that have been laid out so eloquently by all contributors to the debate. We know that our cancer workforce had challenges before we went into the pandemic.

Let me remind Members of something that only the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly referred to: yesterday, 506 families lost a loved one to covid. It is still with us. We are in a covid-tinged world, and that affects how quickly we can drive other services. However, the resumption of cancer services across the piece—be they treatment, diagnosis or screening—has been the No. 1 priority for me from the time we understood and were able to drive those things in.

I am glad that hon. Members who have taken part in the debate recognise the importance of breast screening in the early detection of breast cancer. As with any diagnosis of cancer, early detection gives people a better chance. The simple fact is that screening saves lives.

I very gently take the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to task on the statistic that every four weeks represents a 10% lower chance of survival. Cancers, as he well knows, vary enormously in type, grade and everything else. I do not want people not to come forward for screening, diagnosis or treatment because they feel that any loss of time will have had a negative impact. It has to be that as soon as you have a symptom, you come forward. Campaigns such as “Be Clear on Cancer” and “Help Us Help You” are driving at giving people confidence.

We have ensured that services are safe, and our aim is for people to be able to access them as quickly as possible, secure in the knowledge that they are safe. I will cover this later, but while I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) were saying, the whole point of open appointments is to maximise the use of available capacity versus fixed-time appointments. A health inequality impact assessment has been done to try to make sure that nobody is disproportionately impacted, and I have asked for a specific eye to be kept on that. Now, if you like—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. As a matter of courtesy, it is normal for Ministers to address the Chair.

[Jo Churchill]

I am so sorry, Sir Edward. As I was saying, the challenge is that there is variation in the system. That variation occurs for a plethora of reasons, not only those that are covered by an impact assessment on accessibility via open appointments. It is important to keep an eye on all the data.

I am proud that we have a national breast screening programme that offers every woman between the ages of 50 and 70 an appointment every three years. We will strain every sinew to ensure that nobody waits longer than 36 months. We will not step back from that, even with the challenge of driving the backlog down. The programme reaches millions of women and detects approximately 20,000 cancers each year. I recognise the challenge, but every single individual provider has been asked to produce a recovery plan, which should help us to understand the variation. I recognise that about half a million women are waiting, but there are also 500,000 women who have not replied. They will need to be re-approached and encouraged into the system. It is incumbent on everyone to give women the confidence to come forward.

We have also had to look at making sure that women are asked to come forward in accordance with priority by targeting the women who are most likely to have an occurrence of breast cancer. High-risk women will not have open appointments; they will be called immediately. We will then screen positive women in the pathway, followed by screening results that have not been processed, routine open episodes, those who have previously been invited but not screened, and the delays. It is important that we prioritise, so that we target the women we are most worried about.

I am aware that this year, the national breast screening programme could not maintain the service that it normally provides. In March, as the NHS responded to one of the biggest challenges that has faced our healthcare system in a generation, many local providers made the decision to pause appointments so that arrangements could be put in place to protect staff and patients from covid-19. We were unaware at that point what we were dealing with. Staff and facilities were redeployed to tackle the outbreak of the pandemic, but as soon as it was possible to do so, it was made an absolute priority that they were brought back in to do the job that we need them to do.

I am sure that there is not a single Member in this Chamber, or indeed the House, who does not pay tribute to the hard work of all NHS staff. Cancer staff and their teams have done a particularly incredible job of making sure that people across the cancer family have received treatment. Earlier today, I talked to a young man about the treatment he has had, and I talked to a young woman who experienced chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment earlier this year. The redeployment of staff left a shortfall in the breast screening programme, and screening appointments for many women have been delayed. I know that that wait, and the anxiety it drives, is incredibly difficult. For those who are looking for reassurance from their routine screen, or who are waiting to receive an all-clear or an early warning that something is wrong, this is undoubtedly a challenging time. However, I want to be absolutely clear that no woman has been left behind, and no woman ever will be. It is a priority to ensure that services are there. Improvements are being driven by the heroic efforts of staff, who have been working longer days and over weekends. They have gone above and beyond to schedule as many appointments as possible to help to drive down the backlog that was created earlier this year.

The first priority is to screen women aged 53 who have not yet had their first screening appointment; those who have passed their 71st birthday and have not yet received their final breast screen; those at very high risk of breast cancer, as I said; and those who have been identified for further treatment. I am pleased to say that the tremendous efforts of screening staff—the nurses, the radiographers and the whole team—are succeeding and the backlog is steadily reducing. The number of women waiting for screening, having received an invitation prior to the first wave, decreased by 98% between 1 June and 4 November.

Screening has been made a clear priority this winter and NHS commissioners have been instructed, where humanly possible, not to redeploy their staff or their facilities away from screening services. It is a priority, and that is absolutely the right approach. My message to everyone is that breast screening services are running, they are safe, they will continue to run through the winter and they are standing up to the increased capacity that is coming towards them.

When people receive an appointment to attend, I urge them to go. “Do not attends” are so frustrating. Those appointments could be taken by a woman who—although she would not want a diagnosis—might get into the stream quicker.

Coronavirus Regulations: Assisted Deaths Abroad

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I do think it important that we consider the question of end-of-life care, and support for palliative care is important. The coronavirus epidemic has shone a light on palliative and end-of-life care in the wider public debate, and that is right and good. That is a matter for the Government, but the specific question of assisted dying is, of course, a question for this House, and we need, together, to find a way to ensure that we all serve our constituents as best we can, taking into account the best possible evidence and all the sincerely held views on this sensitive subject.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing me in, Mr Speaker.

On the piano in my home in Lincolnshire, I have a lovely photograph of Pope Francis embracing a very old and very sick woman. At the bottom it says, “Cherish life, but accept death.” I was struck by what the Secretary of State said earlier—that we do not need to extend death or suffering; we can help people through this extraordinarily difficult time. I think we do need a review. Many people are helped into death. I remember my best friend, Piers Merchant, a former colleague here. I was at his side, and as he died, morphine was being pumped into him. No doubt, he was killed by the morphine, but that was a humane and right thing to do. We need to have a review on the basis of cherishing life but accepting death, and not necessarily pounding very old and sick people with more and more operations and pain.

[Matt Hancock]

As a highly respected and very significant voice among Catholics in this country, my right hon. Friend speaks powerfully, from both a position of his faith and a compassionate position of respect for what the current rules mean in practice. The whole House, and indeed the country, will have heard his contribution and it leaves us all to ponder this question.

Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is her party’s spokesperson on this issue. I entirely understand where she is coming from and the importance of trust and transparency. I set out in the statement why the move has been made to increase the tier level—the infection rates and the hospitalisation rates—and why that development needed to be arrested by these measures. I set out in response to the shadow Secretary of State the considerations that would play a part in determining the review periods when an area could start to move back down those tiers. Those things include infection rates, the impact on the NHS and hospital capacity in the area and other local factors. It is reasonable that we set out that broad approach, but also that we recognise that in some areas very specific local considerations will be driving growth of the disease and infection rates, and they may need to be taken into consideration as well.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If someone lives in Gainsborough and they want to take a test, they can go to the Lincolnshire showground, but equally they might go to Doncaster airport, if their work takes them up there and it is not much further. There is a mystery about infection rates in West Lindsey, because they are higher than all the surrounding areas, despite the fact that we have no university, we are a rural area and we have no large hospital. I suspect the figures are being corrupted because the large local testing site is at the Lincolnshire showground. Cases are probably coming in from outside and featuring in West Lindsey figures. That is important, not just for South Yorkshire but for everywhere else, because if those figures are wrong, how can we rely on them? How can we lock down areas and put businesses out of business if the figures simply do not add up?

[Edward Argar]

I am not aware of any systemic issue that is seeing false data entered, but if my right hon. Friend is happy to give me more information, I am happy to look into it for him. There can, though, be other factors beyond universities or a young population. There can be a range of things in a particular area that drive a particular spike, but I am happy to look at the information he has got.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), and I share very much her frustration at the impossibility of getting clear answers from the Government on so many of these important questions.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”—

those words from William Pitt were included in an email from one of my constituents complaining about the way in which this Government are treating the constituents in Christchurch and so many other people in this country. What is the necessity for what the Government are bringing forward today? I asked on 8 October whether the Government would publish the evidence in support of the Secretary of State’s statement on 1 October that

“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]—

if the Government just let the virus rip. There has been no answer to that question—no attempt to answer it—nor has there been any justification for the arbitrary introduction of a 10 o’clock curfew.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend trust the prognosis of Professor Ferguson, whose estimates have been proved wrong again and again and are wildly exaggerated?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not trust them at all. I shall refer to the evidence from Sweden, because the Prime Minister’s challenge to his critics was to put forward an alternative. The Swedish approach is clear and simple—it is to trust the people and make them responsible for their own health and welfare. I looked at the figures for Sweden for the first week of October. Only seven deaths were recorded in Sweden in the whole of that period and today, not a single death was recorded in Sweden. The Swedish Public Health Agency recommends that household isolation and quarantine should exclude those who have provisionally tested positive for covid-19 or have been confirmed to have antibodies in the last six months. I tabled a question asking why that category of people cannot be exempt from these regulations. Again, I have not had an answer, although the time when it should have been answered has long passed. This is intolerable—the arrogance with which the Government are treating us as elected Members of this place.

Swedish common sense is to the fore. They have restricted gatherings not to six, but to 50. They allow nursing homes to decide their own visiting policies. They regard the rules about face coverings as simplistic and irrelevant. Again, on face coverings, I tabled a parliamentary question on 25 September asking the Secretary of State

“whether the introduction of regulations requiring the use of face coverings was linked to an increase in infection rates of covid-19”.

It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that since those regulations were brought in, there has been an exponential increase in the infection rate in this country. Have I had an answer to that question? Of course not, which suggests that the Government do not even want to face up to the evidence that face coverings are counterproductive and are leading to a false sense of security.

In Sweden, two thirds of all deaths from covid-19 have been in the over-80 age group. That is similar to the situation here, and all the United Kingdom restrictions have so far given the average member of this country—the UK citizen—an extra half-day of life. These new restrictions that are coming in will not even give that, because the collateral damage that is being caused will actually reduce life expectancy further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well think that over 37 years, you have heard enough from me, so let me read out a letter that happened to arrive this morning from a constituent. It says:

“I am 67 years old and for the first time in a long time I am scared. Not of the virus, which, let’s be honest, is proving to be no more deadly than the flu”—

that is his opinion; I do not necessarily share it.

“I am scared of the damage being deliberately caused to the economy and our freedoms by this Government in the name of covid-19. It isn’t the virus closing businesses and causing job losses, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus stopping people getting treatment and operations, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus preventing pupils and students getting the education they are entitled to, it’s the actions of the Government.”

So speaks my constituent in a letter that arrived this morning.

Another letter arrived this morning from a constituent telling me that they were having doorstep services very successfully over recent months attended by six to 16 people in place of going to church if that was not possible. That, of course, now breaks the rule of six, so they have had to stop.

I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) in posing some serious questions to Government that have to be answered. On positive test results—I ask the Government to write back to me if they cannot answer in the winding-up speech—what percentage do they estimate are false positives? Of covid hospitalisations, what is the breakdown between those in hospital who happen to have tested positive and those who are in hospital because of their covid symptoms? Given the disparity between the number of cases and the number of deaths, are we not wrong to react to the rate of infection, rather than hospitalisations and deaths? There are many, many other questions that need answering.

Following my hon. Friend, what is the evidence that we are saving lives by throwing people out of pubs at 10 o’clock into the street? They can go and buy lager in the shops. They can go back to their student digs.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of bringing the Government to account would be to withhold our support until these important questions are answered?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes his point. We are a Parliament and we are entitled to express our opinion and hold the Government to account, and that is what we are trying to do this afternoon.

The trouble with the Health Secretary’s arguments is that he is always raising up Aunt Sallies and pretending that some of us want to let this thing rip. We are simply trying to ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. No Member of Parliament wants to let this thing rip, but what we do say is that the real danger of the disease is to people over 80. The average age of death is 82, and the vast number of them are over 80. It is up to the older population and those who care for them to take self-responsibility—masked by all means, taking great care and shielding even in places of multiple occupation. We have to shield elderly people—they are the people at risk—but we have to get the country back to work. We simply cannot go on bailing out businesses. We are going bankrupt, as I said to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this afternoon.

With the economy, we are hoping to pull ourselves up by the hair. We cannot do it. We have to allow people to work, and therefore the whole approach needs to change. We need to emphasise the need to shield the elderly population and those who care for them and we need people to take back control of their own lives. I repeat—I will say it again and again—that if we go on cancelling cancer operations and heart operations, if we drive people into mental health difficulties and if we close down businesses, we are paying a terrible price, and there has to be a balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I must start with some moments of sadness, which is that, although we have heard much praise of the vaccines in development, the reality is that we do not know whether one is coming. If it does come, how effective will it be? If it is effective, which groups will it benefit? Even if it is effective in wide groups, how easily will it be made and distributed? We have so many variables and so many unknowns here.

I appreciate enormously the position that the Minister and the Government find themselves in, but it is because of this uncertainty that we need to look really hard at the decisions we are making tonight. These decisions are not just about the spread of coronavirus, or indeed its prevention, but about the health, the mental health and the wellbeing of our entire community. Fundamentally, they are not just about health today, but about health tomorrow. The impact on the economy is not simply something for the Treasury to be interested in; it is of fundamental interest to the Department of Health and Social Care and to the welfare of every person in this country. That is why I ask the Government to think very hard as they make these decisions.

The purpose of government is quite simple: it is to provide a stable platform on which people can build free and independent lives—not controlled lives, not ordered lives, but lives that are free and independent. Today, we are taking decisions that are interrupting that and making that harder. I see the position that the Government find themselves in, but I ask them to think very hard about the powers that they are asking to take.

At the moment, we are not getting the predictability and the consistency that we need. When we talk to ambassadors or high commissioners of the United Kingdom around the world, there are some countries that have easy access to the UK without quarantine and others that do not. The rules that govern which do and which do not are not immediately consistent. It is not immediately obvious which will benefit and which will not. When we look at the different areas in the United Kingdom, we see the same problem. This level of consistency, of predictability, that is so essential for a free people to know and to invest in—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

All we want from the Government is consistency. They spent all summer telling us to go into pubs and restaurants, and paying us to do so. They told us all summer to go back to our offices, and now they are telling us the opposite. Members might not agree with what they are doing in Sweden, but at least there is a consistent message. That is all I am asking of the Government.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. What we are looking for is the consistency to know that, over the next two, three, or perhaps five years, we will have to live with this virus and perhaps without a fully effective vaccine. We need a system that people can rely on, can know what they are doing and can be able to plan their lives, because, at the moment, it is off the bus, on the bus, off the bus, on the bus. For those of us who have served in uniform, we know how much time that wastes, we know how much time that takes, and it makes it so much harder not just to plan for weddings and, sadly, for funerals, but to make even simple investment decisions. Even those areas of the economy that are not closed down suffer because of the lack of predictability.

I ask the Government to think very hard about the decisions that they are taking, to devolve as much as possible locally so that those who are in closest touch with the populations that they are elected to govern can make the decisions, to follow the track and trace and to understand the effects of the virus locally, and, on a much wider scale, to come up with rules that can actually be relied on not just for a few weeks, not just for a few months, but, sadly, possibly for several years.

Covid-19

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Today’s debate comes at a critical moment, as coronavirus continues its deadly march across the globe. Too many lives have been cut short and there has been too much hardship and suffering. Here at home we have seen a sharp rise in the number of cases, and this must concern us all. We know from bitter experience in so many countries that the nature of exponential growth is that, once the virus is spreading, it accelerates, with all the consequences that brings.

It is the first duty of Government—of any Government —to keep people safe. Our duty—that of each of us here in this House—is to seek to represent our constituents to the best of our ability in their interests and in the interests of the nation. In tackling this unprecedented pandemic, we must each of us seek to balance the cherished freedoms on which people thrive with that duty to keep people safe, balancing in each judgment the economic, social, educational and, of course, health needs on which our nation’s future depends.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, will the Secretary of State remember that the first duty of Parliament is to hold Government to account? I know that he wants to take public opinion with him, but will he therefore reassure us that he is also determined to take Parliament with him? In that respect, may I urge him to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and come to a compromise to ensure that, if there are further national lockdowns, Parliament will be fully involved in the process?

[Matt Hancock]

I thought this might come up. I was going to develop the argument further before coming to the nub of that particular point, but, since my right hon. Friend gives me the opportunity, I strongly agree with the need for us in this House to have the appropriate level of scrutiny. As the Prime Minister set out last week, we have already put in place further measures. The aim is to provide the House with the opportunity to scrutinise in advance through regular statements and debates, questioning the Government’s scientific advisers more regularly—that has already started—gaining access to local data and having the daily calls with Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

We are looking at further ways to ensure that the House can be properly involved in the process—in advance, where possible. I hope to provide the House with further details soon. I will take up the invitation to a further meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), whom I have already met to discuss this matter, to see what further progress can be made. I hope that that, for the time being, satisfies my right hon. Friend.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I would be very happy to work with the hon. Lady on this question. We do have to make sure that our hospitals are covid-secure. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the specifics at the Royal Free.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The trouble with authoritarianism is that it is profoundly inimical to civil liberties. It is also increasingly incompetent. It relies on acquiescence, and acquiescence for lockdowns, particularly national ones, is draining away. For instance, if students are told not to go to pubs, they will simply congregate in rooms, which is even worse. If the Secretary of State does not listen to me, will he at least listen to Professor Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases? He wrote in The Sunday Telegraph:

“It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown”.

He suggests—[Interruption.] I am trying to be constructive. He suggests that we rely on encouraging people to look after themselves, to protect the vulnerable and to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the Conservative way.

[Matt Hancock]

As a Conservative, I believe in as much freedom as possible consistent with not harming others. One of the sad things about this virus is that because of asymptomatic transmission, if people put themselves at risk of catching coronavirus and get ill, they are not only putting themselves at risk but putting others at risk as well. That is the Conservative principle behind protecting the health of the nation in the face of this pandemic.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The answer to that last question is, absolutely, yes. The hon. Lady is quite right that expanding the NHS capacity, as well as expanding the so-called pillar 2 capacity, is right. The SNP spokesperson and I sometimes have robust exchanges but on this, she is completely right. It is an “and/and together” strategy of having the pillar 2 mass testing across the board and the expansion of NHS capacity. I am working as closely as I possibly can with Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the SNP Government in Edinburgh, to deliver that as effectively as possible right across the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Please do not take this as unduly critical, because none of us could have done any better, but the problem for the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It is easy to be wise after the event. The problem for the Secretary of State is that given the contradictory nature of advice given to people—maybe necessitated by events—fewer and fewer people are listening to him, particularly young people. I think we need a different approach. The approach of the nanny state, of ordering people about, particularly in this country, is not going to work. We have to appeal to the good sense of young people—“Stay away from grandpa and grandma. It is your responsibility.” These lockdowns and things are not going to work—it is their responsibility. And for us grandads—“Stay away from your grandchildren”. The problem is that if we order people about more and more, they stop listening. They realise the Secretary of State cannot enforce anything. He will become the emperor without clothes, and we will go backwards. We need an approach based on traditional self-reliance and to trust the people.

[Matt Hancock]

I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend is making. Unfortunately, we have seen this play out in other countries around the world. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of cases—in the first instance, among younger people—and we have seen people make this argument, entirely understandably, because younger people are much less likely to die of this disease. Notwithstanding the point about long covid and the fact that young people can have debilitating long-term consequences from this disease, the problem is that the isolation of older people who are more likely, because of their age, to have very serious consequences has simply not been effective anywhere in the world. The challenge is that younger people may pass it on, for instance, to their parents, who, in turn, can pass it on to theirs. This disease is absolutely insidious in getting from person to person. In its natural state, it spreads on average from one person to between two and three others, and it doubles in the community every three to four days.

The challenge is that without widespread social distancing, as opposed to the segregation that my right hon. Friend proposed, all the evidence is that we will end up with more hospitalisations and more deaths. I would rather get ahead of this here, learning the lessons from what we have seen first in America, and then in Spain, and now, sadly, it is starting to happen in France. I absolutely take the point about the need to communicate more but I believe, with my whole heart, that we need to communicate that we all have a responsibility, including young people, and we cannot let this rip through any part of the population, because it will inevitably then get into all.

Covid-19

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We do enter into those sorts of discussions. Of course local councils have a statutory obligation as well, but what matters most is that the response is as effective as it can be. Thus far we have been able to ensure that councils have the support and the capability to be able to respond, but, with their statutory duties, it is absolutely at the top of their priority list to prevent a local outbreak as well.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The truth is that young people of working age who are fit know that there is very little chance of their becoming seriously ill from this thing. I know that the Secretary of State will say, yes, but they can pass it on to older people, but may I speak on behalf of older people? I am one. I think that, at 70, I am the oldest person here and I am still kicking—just. What I can say to him is that older people do not want to be patronised. They are very well aware of their own health needs. They can be trusted to isolate if they have to. We do not want to have this thing whereby the man from Whitehall knows best. The man from Whitehall does not know best, especially as he changes his mind every two minutes. Can we get back to being a proper Conservative Government who trust the people and who let the people decide how to look after their own health?

[Matt Hancock]

The challenge is that this disease passes on without people knowing. I have seen the challenge of older people trying to stay away from and stay safe from the continuing spread. In the United States of America, we saw that, at first, the increase in rates was among younger people and then it spread and the hospitalisation rate went up and then the number of deaths went up. Unfortunately, we are seeing a similar pattern on parts of the continent. I understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. The goal is to have as little intervention, as targeted intervention, as possible, subject to keeping the virus under control. That is what we are trying to do. Essentially, we want to protect the ability of schools to go back and to make sure that we get the economy going as much as possible. These localised interventions, whether through test and trace to the individuals who have tested positive or to a local area where there is an outbreak, is the approach that we propose.