Suicide and Mental Health of Young People: Tatton

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of suicide and mental health of young people in Tatton constituency.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to convey my appreciation to the Minister for replying to this extremely important and sensitive debate on the management of withdrawal from antidepressant medication, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the profound impact that that process can have on the mental health and suicide risk of young people.

I would like to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to my constituent, Gina Russell, who met me and bravely shared the experience of her daughter, Olivia, who tragically took her life in September 2021, following withdrawal from SSRI medication. Olivia’s mum is unable to be with us in Westminster Hall today. However, I know that she and her family are watching this debate at home, as they are determined to help prevent others having to suffer the same fate as Olivia.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the charities Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide, as well as to The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition and the House of Commons Library for the information provided to me before this debate. While the information was insightful, it was deeply disturbing, as it revealed that Olivia’s experience of declining mental health as medication was withdrawn was far from unique and was a known risk, which made me determined to pursue this debate on behalf of her family and thus bring Olivia’s story and her family’s suffering to a wider audience.

Let me start by painting a picture of Olivia, who was an intelligent, creative and hard-working 25-year-old who had just left Tatton to live in London. Her parents remember her as wonderful and vibrant—a loving daughter and a loving younger sister to her brother, Luke; a cherished and adored granddaughter; and a loyal, kind and supportive friend. She lit up a room and was admired by all who knew and loved her.

In November 2020, during the pandemic, Olivia became anxious. She began taking an SSRI—citalopram—to manage her anxiety. Initially, Olivia responded well to treatment. However, when the time came to discontinue the medication in June 2021, she experienced a rapid decline in her mental health, which was far worse than what she had previously faced. She then resumed SSRI treatment in August 2021, finally taking her life in September 2021. When she first came off her medication it was without consulting her GP, because she was feeling better. She should have been warned about stopping taking the antidepressant. The family was later to discover that citalopram is one of the most difficult antidepressants to come off.

Tragically, the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that between a third and half of people who take antidepressant medications experience withdrawal symptoms to some extent. The severity and duration of these symptoms, and whom they affect, is not certain. In Olivia’s case, the withdrawal symptoms were severe and the resulting deterioration in her mental state ultimately led to her taking her own life. Members should bear in mind that suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people under 35 in the UK, and the mental health of young people has declined alarmingly in recent years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for the very sensitive way in which she is delivering her speech. In Northern Ireland, the worrying thing about suicides is that we have had an 8% increase in the last year. It worries me greatly that people are unable to cope with life. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the inability of GPs—I think she mentioned this—to refer patients to early intervention on mental health is something that must be tackled? Early support for young people, and easy access to it, is the only way to give a lifeline to those who are struggling at a very young age.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my colleague and friend for that pertinent intervention.

The pandemic lockdown exacerbated the mental health crisis, as it brought isolation, uncertainty and disrupted routines at home, in education and in the workplace, taking an immense toll on young people’s wellbeing. During that period, the use of antidepressants, including SSRIs, rose significantly. Meanwhile, access to in-person medical support was often severely limited, which may have worsened the challenges faced by patients navigating their mental health and medication.

Last year, the closure of England’s only dedicated antidepressant withdrawal helpline, the Bristol and district tranquilliser project, left a further gap in support services for patients, at a time when mental health services are under immense strain. Analysis from the children and young people’s mental health coalition shows that 1.5 million children and young people could need new or increased mental health support as a result of the pandemic.

Those factors combined to create a perfect storm for young people struggling with mental health challenges, with many prescribed SSRI medication as a solution by their medical practitioners. It is important to note the life-changing and positive impact that such medication has had on many people across the country, and I do not seek to contest that or the ability of those medications vastly to improve the mental health of many patients. However, we must also acknowledge that the process of withdrawing from SSRIs can be fraught with challenges that leave patients vulnerable.

In Olivia’s case, her family believed that she was left in the dark. Her mother recalls that the information provided by her GP was limited and did not adequately warn of the risks of sudden or poorly managed withdrawal. As a result, following her death, the exceptional decision was taken by the coroner to produce a prevention of future deaths report. It found no evidence that Olivia was explicitly warned about the risks of relapse or the potential signs of withdrawal, or told that she might feel worse before feeling better. The report concluded that while advice may have been given, it was not conclusive and concern was expressed regarding the inconsistency of advice that each GP might give patients. The report could not say with confidence that every GP within Olivia’s practice was discussing the key risks associated with SSRI medication withdrawal.

That requires our immediate attention, as the principle of informed consent, which underpins our healthcare system, requires that patients are fully aware of the benefits and risks of any medical procedure or treatment. The General Medical Council’s professional standards for decision making and consent stipulate that doctors’ discussions should recognise the effect of the patient’s individual clinical circumstances on the probability of benefit or harm occurring.

Guidance from the GMC acknowledges that the amount of information doctors provide to patients can vary due to time constraints. Where such time constraints exist, doctors are encouraged to involve other medical professionals, such as clinicians, or to refer patients to the patient information leaflet accompanying their medication. Patients are legally entitled to a patient information leaflet with their prescriptions, but the responsibility for providing it lies with pharmacies. That places the onus on patients, potentially in a vulnerable position, to navigate complex decisions alone. The leaflets are often lengthy and rely on a patient reading and understanding information provided.

The issue is compounded by outdated guidance. Until recently, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—suggested that withdrawal symptoms typically last one to two weeks. That has now been updated to reflect the fact that symptoms can be more severe and prolonged, but the updates have not yet translated into comprehensive and systematic changes to ensure that patients are adequately supported. Inconsistent guidance on antidepressant withdrawal has resulted in many patients experiencing distressing and debilitating symptoms. Patients have been misdiagnosed as suffering from a relapse of their original mental health condition, and others have been left fearful about stopping using their antidepressants. That may have contributed to many individuals staying on their antidepressant medication for longer than is necessary, with a report in 2023 suggesting that 2 million people are taking antidepressants for five years or more.

What improvements can be made to ensure the better facilitation of SSRI withdrawal? Olivia’s family believe that there are measures that could be taken that would go far in protecting patients when withdrawing from the medication. A move as simple as placing a warning label on the packaging of SSRI prescriptions would be a straightforward way to convey the dangers of the medication. It would not replace the more comprehensive information provided in a patient information leaflet, or the guidance of a GP. However, it would act as a safeguard in circumstances should those fail. The safety of patients’ prescribed medications must be guaranteed, not left to change based on appointment time constraints or whether a patient has read in full the often lengthy patient information leaflet.

The story of Olivia and her family is a painful reminder of the urgent need to address the risks associated with SSRI withdrawal, and the broader mental health crisis facing young people today. While SSRIs have transformed countless lives, we cannot overlook the vulnerability of those navigating withdrawal. We owe it to families like Olivia’s to ensure that no one feels unsupported or uninformed when taking such important decisions. Simple measures, such as enhanced warnings on medication packages, improved guidance for medical practitioners and comprehensive advice can make the process of withdrawal palpably easier and safer, potentially offering better outcomes for individuals navigating the complex process of withdrawal from SSRIs.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s consideration of the issues I have discussed. Finally, in Olivia’s instance, the coroner produced a prevention of future deaths report, so I ask the Minister how such a report can become wholesale advice to the medical profession? Will he work with me to ensure that it does, in order to prevent lives like Olivia’s being cut tragically short?

Income Tax (Charge)

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on her maiden speech and her personal story. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today’s Budget debate on fixing the NHS and reforming public services. However, the truth is that this Budget’s smash and grab on the UK’s businesses means that the money will not be there to pay for the excellent public services this country requires.

Labour has never understood the concept of private enterprise and businesses paying for public services, and that it is only with a thriving private sector that the country can have the public services it wants and needs. Make no mistake: this Budget will be catastrophic for the economic health of this country. It is the biggest tax-raising Budget in British history, and it will turn out to be the longest suicide note in Labour’s political history, too.

The Budget is socialism at its worst: high taxes, high spending and massive debt. [Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is massive debt for future generations. This Budget is anti-business, anti-farmer, anti-aspiration, anti-wealth creation and anti-worker. Yes, anti-worker. Despite all of Labour’s promises before the general election, the Government are taxing workers as they raise national insurance contributions for employers.

This begs the question: do the Chancellor and the Prime Minister not know how the economy works? They certainly do not know how business works. Not one of the current bunch of Cabinet Ministers has ever set up a business. No wonder they do not have a clue about national insurance contributions.

For clarity, both the independent Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that 80% of the employer national insurance rises will be paid for by the workers through lower wages and reduced employment levels. No wonder Labour Members have now gone silent.

The Chancellor’s raid on the unfairest tax of all, inheritance tax, will double the number of estates that have to pay it and, disgracefully, will make it virtually impossible for family farmers to pass on their business to the next generation. Farmers are most definitely working people, just in case Labour Members do not know. This Budget will be disastrous for our rural areas and for the country’s food security, and all because of good old-fashioned socialist envy.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

No, I will carry on, thank you very much.

In addition to huge tax rises, this Budget will have an eye-watering impact on the country’s debt. Debt interest payments will be more than £100 billion a year, every year, and will reach an astonishing £120 billion by the end of the decade. To put that into context—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey]

I will carry on for a little longer.

To put that into context, it dwarfs the UK’s annual defence spend, which stands at £55 billion. This is money being wasted instead of being spent on public services.

And if all that was not bad enough, the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecast to a measly 1.5% for the years running up to the next general election. So much for Labour saying this would be a Budget for growth. This Labour Budget has taken our country back to the 1970s, with crippling taxation, unsustainable levels of borrowing and the trade unions in control. The Budget has also broken virtually every economic promise Labour made during the election. In fact, even worse than the economic misery this Budget will bring might be the further mistrust in politicians it will cause.

Labour ruled out tax hikes on working people more than 50 times, and it ruled out changing the fiscal rules to fiddle the figures. Mark my words, on top of the betrayal of pensioners with the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance, this Budget will be a nail in this Government’s coffin, only four months after they secured a huge majority.

At the weekend, the Chancellor eventually came round to admitting that Labour will be taxing workers, but I am afraid that saying it now, having denied it at the general election, does not wash. It is way too late to be admitting it. All it has done is expose the fact that this Labour Government were elected on a false premise and therefore do not have a mandate for this Budget. [Laughter.] Laughing after not telling the public what they were going to do is why I certainly will not be supporting this Budget.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Lewis Atkinson to make his maiden speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is incredibly knowledgeable about public health matters both at national and local level. Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS set out the impact of past reductions in local government public health funding. We will confirm public health grant allocations for the next financial year as part of the forthcoming spending review, but the points she made have been made loudly and clearly.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State update the House on the status of Alan Milburn? Does he still attend meetings in the Department and have access to confidential information? Does he now have an official role in the Department? Does he still have private sector interests in the healthcare sector?

[Wes Streeting]

The right hon. Alan Milburn is alive, he is safe and we are treating him well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Better late than never, as they say.

I have been to Hillingdon hospital, which has amazing staff and appalling buildings. That is why the people of Hillingdon, and people right across the country, deserve honesty, clarity and certainty about the new hospitals programme. This Government will provide it and stick to it.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that handing over powers to the World Health Organisation, undermining the UK’s ability to make its own sovereign decisions, would be unacceptable?

[Wes Streeting]

The World Health Organisation is an intergovernmental arrangement. It is of vital importance that, first and foremost, we agree only to things that are in our national interest, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there are lots of things that we need to do together in pursuit of our national interest, from tackling antimicrobial resistance to preventing future pandemic threats. That is exactly what we will do.

Community Pharmacies

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you as Chair, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate on community pharmacies, which are a crucial part of our healthcare ecosystem. I also thank him for his thorough explanation of the current state of community pharmacies and their needs.

I am often reminded that when we feel unwell or something has gone a bit wrong, our first point of call is often to walk into a pharmacy to get advice, support and medicine. Somebody there can put one’s mind at ease. Those who are vulnerable or elderly can also get their medicines delivered to them, which adds to the wellbeing of the local community. However, despite community pharmacies’ immense importance, they face huge challenges. Increasing demands and ongoing pressures are threatening their sustainability. Tatton currently has a healthy number of local pharmacies—18— supporting nearly 70,000 residents. However, pharmacies are disappearing across the country—and in Tatton, too. Government figures show a decrease of 222 between December 2022 and June 2023. The reasons for those closures include inadequate funding, rising operational costs and difficulty in recruiting and retaining community pharmacists.

Tatton community pharmacist Lee Williams, along with his wife and fellow pharmacist Caroline, were two of the first constituents I met at their pharmacy in Knutsford when I became the MP for Tatton back in 2017. They have since had to close their pharmacy. Lee explained to me that, despite it being a busy community pharmacy and having a good reputation—I can vouch for that, as I went there, too—they had very much a hand-to-mouth existence as funding fell and things such as rent, utilities and wages increased, squeezing their profit margin to the point where their business became unviable and the only thing they could do to safeguard their 12 years of tireless work was to sell it. It was a sad day for them, because their dream was for the two of them, married, running this community pharmacy and supporting the local community, but it had become abundantly clear to them for some time that the only way for such pharmacies to exist was to find efficiencies through having multiple branches. But now, even the large multiple retailers such as Lloyds and Rowlands have had to sell off their community stores as they move to remote delivery and go online in an attempt to become profitable. Even they cannot make community pharmacies work.

Adding to the problem of underfunding is, as we have heard, a shortage of medicines, which often results in community pharmacists dispensing medicines at a loss. Even when the NHS decides to increase the price it is willing to reimburse pharmacists for those medicines, it often comes after weeks of pharmacists gambling on what price they will have to pay, which creates huge uncertainty for them and their businesses. Ironically, it is the very low prices that the NHS is willing to pay that drive the shortages. If a manufacturer can sell those medicines for a higher price in other countries, it will prioritise those markets over our own. Community pharmacists find that their staff, in their role as pharmacists, are spending a lot of their time trying to find stock, on top of their crippling workload.

Community pharmacy is therefore at a low—the pharmacists would say an all-time low—which corresponds to much of the results of Community Pharmacy England’s 2023 pressures survey. It found that 92% of pharmacies are dealing with medicine supply issues daily, which was an increase from 67% in 2022; 97% of pharmacy owners reported significant increases in wholesaler and medicine supply issues; 81% of pharmacy staff said they were “struggling to cope” with the significant increase in workload; and 84% had experienced aggression from patients due to medicine supply issues. Worse—if things could be worse—pharmacists face more abuse from the public because of drug shortages.

To keep our community pharmacies afloat, Lee Williams advocates a complete overhaul of how community pharmacies are viewed and remunerated. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of £645 million of new funding for Pharmacy First. The Government realise that things need to be done. Much has been done but more needs to be done, and they need to pursue that as well as they can. We can say that with our Prime Minister as an advocate. However, in the light of the first-hand experience of my constituents that I have just shared and those survey results, how is the Minister ensuring the security and consistency of supply of medicines? How will the Government compensate pharmacies for the extra costs of offering additional services such as annual health checks, which require more skilled staff? I appreciate the difficulty of finding more funding for the sector, but I know that the Government will be looking to do that, so will the Minister explain how? Local pharmacies want to be at the heart of the health sector and take more of the workload off the NHS, but in order to do that they need to be adequately recompensed. They provide a vital service, and I know that they want to do even more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

First, I commend the hon. Member for his campaign on this issue. He has been a powerful advocate and draws on his own experience, as do I. He is probably asking me to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. I encourage him and others concerned about this matter to put their views into that consultation, and we will respond once it is closed.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

18. What recent progress he has made in negotiations with the World Health Organisation on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005.

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)]

The UK continues to negotiate on amendments, alongside other member states of the World Health Organisation. We want to ensure that the International Health Regulations are effective in preventing and responding to potential health threats, leaving the UK better prepared for future health emergencies. We anticipate negotiations to continue until the 77th World Health Assembly in May next year.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister assure me that the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations being negotiated will not give new rule-making powers, such as those tabled by Bangladesh, to the WHO director general to make binding directions on matters including border closures, quarantining and vaccine passports? Even the WHO’s own expert review committee has raised concerns over such significant increases in power.

[Will Quince]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the UK has a strong commitment and duty to implement international law, but on this matter we have been absolutely clear. I can certainly assure her that we will not sign up to any IHR amendment or any other instrument that would compromise the UK’s ability to make domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health.

Reforms to NHS Dentistry

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. Together they have acted like a veritable tag team, securing debate after debate, this being the third.

The problem we are discussing is obviously not getting better, and it is not going away. It is clear from what we have heard from Members today that it is becoming a bigger issue in our casework, and that is certainly my experience. I have taken some desperate phone calls from constituents, and have been shocked by what I have heard. It has led me to get on the phone straight away to beg dentists nearby to see some of those constituents. One, an elderly resident of Wilmslow, was losing his teeth and had abscesses. He needed to have his teeth removed and dentures fitted, but he could not find a dentist. When he rang the emergency dentist, there was a recording saying “No appointments”, and then the phone was just ringing out. He was pointed in the direction of a practice in Buxton, but found that it was no longer taking NHS patients, and one in Northwich which had a two-year waiting list. Other constituents who thought that they were fortunate enough to have an NHS dentist found that the Mobberley Road practice in Knutsford was no longer taking NHS patients either, and that they were no longer registered there.

Healthwatch, the independent statutory body, says that this is the No. 1 issue raised with it by NHS patients, and that four out of 10 people who contact it say that they are having difficulty accessing dental care, which is exactly what I am hearing from my constituents. The system is bad and decaying, and has been for some time. Lockdown made things significantly worse. With dentists shut down for the first few months of the pandemic, 50 million appointments were lost, and 3,000 dentists stopped providing NHS dentistry because the restrictions through lockdown made it financially unviable for practices, meaning NHS dentists are disappearing at a rate of knots. Some 90% of practices are closed to new patients, 80% will not even accept children, and in 37% of local authorities there are no practices accepting new adult NHS patients. Reform needs to be radical.

Tatton dentists have reached out to me and told me the current payment system of units of dental activity, introduced by a Labour Government back in 2006, has never worked and subsequent tinkering has not worked either. The Minister will probably know how it works, but others might not: a check-up with X-rays counts as one unit; adding a filling or several could count as another two units; and providing a full set of dentures is seven. It does not pay: the formula does not work, which means that dentists lose money, particularly when treating the neediest patients—those who really need their care and attention. Those figures never have stacked up and tweaks will not make a difference. In a nutshell, the business case is broken and a new one needs to be brought forward.

NHS dentistry is not attractive; we need to make it appealing. Interestingly, the number of qualified dentists is at an all-time high, but the number doing NHS work has fallen significantly. Last year, a British Dental Association poll found that 45% of dentists in England were doing an average of 25% less NHS work since the start of the pandemic. The poll also shows that 75% of dentists are thinking of reducing their NHS commitment this year, with almost half considering either a change of career, early retirement or turning fully private.

Bupa, which provides both NHS and private services, recently reinforced these figures, stating that it intends to merge or sell 85 of its 450 practices across the UK because of rising running costs and lack of dentists willing to deliver NHS care. This means nearly half a million more patients could lose their dentist.

Making NHS dentistry appealing is, therefore, a matter of high importance. Some suggestions have been handed to me and I will put them forward—and I know the Minister will be coming forward with bold plans. One suggestion was getting rid of student debt for newly trained dentists; might we remove that if they move into NHS provision? Also, what extra funding will be given and how will we move away from units of dental activity? We all want this to work; it is vital that it works and I certainly do not want to be taking calls from desperate constituents who need urgent dental medical care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

Local decisions on public health are taken by local commissioning groups and local authorities, and it is for each local area to decide how it spends the money on public health.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The chief medical officer recently warned that non-covid excess deaths are being driven in part by patients not getting statins or blood pressure medicines during the pandemic. However, when looking at the data on statins on OpenPrescribing.net, which is based on monthly NHS prescribing, there appears not to be a drop, so where is the evidence? If there is none, what is causing these excess deaths? Will the Minister commit to an urgent and thorough investigation on the matter?

[Maria Caulfield]

We are seeing an increase in excess deaths in this country, but we are also seeing that in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and across Europe. There is a range of factors. As we saw, there was an increase in December in the number of people being admitted with flu, covid and other healthcare conditions. That was seen not just in this country, but across Europe.

Contact in Care Settings

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for co-sponsoring it.

It has been deeply distressing to hear the stories that have been told in this debate. Human beings have rights, including the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to equality and the right to private family life, free from Government interference, to be able to spend time with their loved ones. It is a sad fact that all those rights came under attack during the covid lockdowns, but we have moved on from those lockdowns, and the covid restrictions have ended, so it is deeply harrowing to discover that it is not the case for some.

In the stories we have heard today, in the stories I have heard from my constituents and in the stories highlighted in The Sunday Times, I am horrified that, seven months after the removal of official restrictions, care home residents are still being denied visits from their families and friends. It needs to be mentioned that some care homes are open and allowing visits, but others are not and continue to prevent family members from seeing one another. That is simply inhumane. It is beyond cruel. Isolation and the loss of social contact has a devastating impact on physical and psychological health. Without the support of family and friends, health outcomes are poorer, as residents lose hope and sometimes even the will to live, and they often refuse treatment. For residents with dementia this is especially devastating, as they do not understand why their relatives have not been to see them. Many also have serious sensory impairments, and for them physical touch and communication with family members might be all they have left.

I am more concerned that this situation is concealing neglect and abuse. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, I heard from campaigners back in April, and more recently, who warned of widespread and shocking safeguarding issues involving medication, hydration, hygiene and a lack of basic care. Families must be allowed full access, to support, protect and advocate for their loved ones when they need it most.

What can be done to end this unnecessary suffering once and for all? It is now beyond urgent that care homes, local authorities, the UK Health Security Agency and the CQC stop blaming each other for these appalling failures of policy and take action. Rather than requiring new legislation, we need to uphold existing laws. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should have protected against this situation ever arising. Instead, that legislation is being wilfully misinterpreted as an excuse to keep people isolated in care homes; sometimes they feel as though they are prisoners. So I call upon the Minister to get tough on any care homes that block residents from seeing visitors. There should be severe consequences for those who continue to blight the lives of those in care, and they should face fines or legal action.

We are failing vulnerable members of our society and it simply cannot be allowed to continue. We must end all unlawful visiting restrictions and stop this unnecessary suffering and neglect. It is deeply shameful and a stain on our history that our country has allowed this to happen, and that it is still happening so long after covid restrictions have been lifted. Some care homes say that these restrictions are due to staff leaving the sector when mandatory vaccinations were called into use. May I ask therefore what the Minister and the Government are doing to get those staff back into the care homes and into those jobs? It could be that up to 7% of care home staff were lost, which represents 40,000 employees. What are the Government doing to reinstate them and compensate them for losing their jobs? As Professor Robert Dingwall told our all-party parliamentary group at the inaugural meeting last year:

“A good society is defined by life, health, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not by the prevention of one disease alone.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am getting to the third of the three considerations, which is what can be done. On that point, back in April 2021, I was questioned by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights about this very topic. On visiting, I said:

“I want to get to a position where it is as normal as possible. This is something to come back to in the future, particularly if family members and residents feel that the situation is not working as they would want it to.”

Clearly, family and residents do indeed feel that the situation is not working.

I understand that things are not easy for care homes. I understand the staffing pressures caused by the recent increase in covid—and flu, which many residents are vulnerable to. The majority of care homes are allowing normal visiting and, as hon. Members said, many care homes totally recognise the importance of visitors.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am short of time—I have two minutes —so if my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will continue.

However, we cannot continue to have a situation in which families and friends are struggling to see loved ones in care homes. That is why I have already commissioned work today—it was my first commission since my appointment—on the steps that I can take to sort this out. On the question from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I cannot announce legislation here and now at the Dispatch Box, but I have commissioned work on what I can do to sort this out. I assure all hon. Members on the Chamber and all those listening to the debate that I do not consider the status quo acceptable, and I am on the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

Possibly at some risk to my political prospects, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of good and effective leadership. Of course I join him in his remarks about Ukraine.

I highlight that 84% of our NHS workforce are either clinically trained or are directly providing clinical support to clinicians, but it is also important that we recognise the importance and value of the administrators and managers who support the team. That is why we need the best people in those roles, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned the review led by two extremely eminent people. We are determined to continue driving up the quality and standards of management in the NHS.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

7. If he will make an estimate of the percentage of (a) doctors and (b) nurses being paid locum rates in the latest week for which figures are available.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

In NHS hospital trusts to date in 2021-22, there have been on average 14,826 full-time-equivalent agency nurses and 4,621 medical and dental FTE agency staff. It is hard to draw direct percentage comparisons given different methodologies for measuring such percentages, but my understanding is that overall about 3% of nursing shifts and about 1.5% of doctors’ shifts in hospitals are filled by locums or agency staff.

[Esther McVey]

Can we get greater clarity on that information and have it held centrally, given that wages are such a large proportion of the NHS budget? It is essential to know how many hours are paid at the higher locum rate to ensure value for money for the extra billions of pounds that the Government are putting into the NHS to get waiting lists down and for social care.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is tireless in her determination to ensure value for money for her and all of our taxpayers’ pounds, particularly in this space. We continue to work hard to drive down agency and locum spend, focusing instead on both bank staff and our full-time recruitment, on which the Secretary of State has set out the success that we have been having. Since 2015, we have controlled agency spend through price caps and procurement frameworks. However, she is absolutely right, and we want to see more full-time NHS employed staff working at NHS rates in our trusts.