Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course I understand the impact of this decision on the businesses that are affected—both those that were hoping to open but will stay required to be closed by law, like nightclubs, and those that can open but will find it harder to trade than they would otherwise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put in one of the most extensive sets of financial support in the world. Of course, the more affected a business is, the more it is able to draw down on that support—on things like furlough. Furlough continues until September, but there needs to be a step towards the restoration of normal economic life. Nevertheless, we are determined to support businesses, hence the degree of support that has been put in place—that was put in place at the Budget—not just to cover the period of the road map based on the “not before” dates, but to run further than that, in case there needed to be a delay of one of those “not before” dates, because the whole principle was that we take these steps based on data, not dates.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that many of those who are going to hospital now with covid are staying in hospital for a far shorter period than was the case earlier in the pandemic? Will he break down those figures for us? Will he also publish figures showing the breakdown between those who present in hospital for other reasons but subsequently test positive and those presenting with covid?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am very happy to seek to publish all those data. The latter data, I think, are published already. On the former data, the best estimate I have is that the average length of stay for somebody in hospital owing to covid has fallen from 10 days to eight days, so it has fallen to a degree, but not a huge degree. That is partly because of treatments, but it is also partly because some of the people in hospital have had at least one dose of the vaccine, which is highly likely to have reduced the severity of the disease. In the 10 most affected hospital trusts, on average, the number of people going to hospital who have had both doses is under 20%. A further approximately 20% of people have had one dose. The remainder—the majority—are people who have not been vaccinated at all.

Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I cannot say any more than I have already said. We take a cautious approach to travel because of the risk of new variants, which could undermine the whole thing. We have a traffic-light system because some countries are safer to travel to than others.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Children and young people have missed out on so much over the past 15 months or so—both educational opportunities and opportunities for important social development. Today, my right hon. Friend received a letter from a number of Jewish youth groups that run residential summer camps. They are desperately worried that, if the rule of 30 remains after 21 June, what they do simply will not be viable. I am sure that the same is true of many other youth groups. Can he give some reassurance that those safe, regulated, largely outdoor activities will be able to go ahead for groups of much more than 30?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, as part of step 3, those activities were reopened for school-based groups. I absolutely take the point that my hon. Friend is making. That is of course part of step 4. He has made his point clearly.

Coronavirus

Graham Brady Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and delighted to follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I am the 31st Member to speak in this debate. I have been here throughout, and I think I am right in saying that only two Members have given their unqualified support to what the Government propose. The Government would be wise to reflect on that, considering the gap that is opening up between our rulers—the Executive and the Government—and those of us who represent the liberties of the British people. I am particularly pleased to be the fourth Greater Manchester Member to speak against what is being proposed, because we come from a city with a fine and long history of standing up for liberty, and I am glad that is continuing.

The danger in what is being proposed is that we risk normalising an extreme policy response. It was put in place during the emergency a year ago with very little thought or debate, and draconian powers were given to the Government, who initially expected a three-week lockdown, which then became a three-month lockdown. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), were released for three weeks, and then they were again put under heavy new restrictions.

I have asked before in this Chamber a question about whose rights we are dealing with. Do the Government have the right to tell people whether they can see their children or grandchildren, or whether they can start a relationship with someone? My answer is an emphatic “no”. Even those who are less certain should reflect on whether extreme control over people’s right to family life, intimate relationships, and freedom of association should be introduced just briefly by the Government in an emergency, or for more than a year.

On 6 January—the last time we had an opportunity to assert some control on the Government exercising these powers—the Prime Minister told me, when I intervened on him, that it would be very surprising if the House did not get a vote to get rid of any of these restrictions before the end of March. Well, okay, it is 25 March, so perhaps we should prepare to be surprised. I stand with Members in all parts of the House who have said we should expect that, if the Government are given these extreme powers and allowed them for longer, they will retain them and are likely to seek to extend them. That is why the House should say no to extending the Coronavirus Act—it would have been in force for a year and a half at least.

The danger is that Government start to believe that these fundamental civil liberties belong to Ministers to grant to us or withhold. They do not—they belong, as of right, to British citizens. It is this habit of control that leads to coercive laws that have no sense. Government have, for example, a legitimate interest in people who entered the United Kingdom from high-risk countries, but there is no public health argument for fining people £5,000 for leaving the country, and the Government should think again about that. This habit of coercion and control has gone too far, and it has gone on for too long. It is time for this House to trust the British people and return their rights to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am wrong there, and I would like the record corrected.

I would say that those colleagues—those who were present in previous Parliaments—also voted for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and for reforms to trade union rights. I also believe that most, if not all, of them intend to vote for what are pretty draconian reforms to our voting process, particularly regarding identification. So I am not here to take lectures on individual freedom.

I think this is about ideology and worldview. If someone spent the 40 years since Ronald Reagan became President telling people that the thing holding them back was Government and that the way forward was less Government, then this last year has been a problem. It has shown at home and abroad that Government do have a role in making sure that people have an income, do have a role in making sure that they have housing and do have a role in protecting their health, and that it is not always best to leave things to the market.

[Sir Graham Brady]

I am listening carefully to the argument the hon. Gentleman is developing. Is he saying that there is simply no limit to how long he would be willing to have these restrictions on people’s freedoms in place, should there always be some threat of another variant of covid?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that intervention. That is not my position and I am going to develop that argument shortly. I would hope to hear from the Minister that, particularly with these provisions lasting into October, he intends to bring them down much more quickly than that and as soon as we can. The point that the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands made about 21 June being present only in the procedural motions was a very good one.

Let me make a couple of points about the specifics and substance of the Act. It is right that the opportunity is being taken today to sunset provisions in it—certainly ones that have not been used—and we support the Government where they have chosen to do that. However, I do wish to question the Minister on the three provisions that are suspended. On sections 22 and 23, which expire tomorrow, I would like clarity that, as they have expired rather than been formally turned off, they will not be revivable and there is no intention to revive them. On section 58, in relation to transportation, storage and disposal of dead bodies, why was that only suspended? There does not seem to be a foreseeable use for that.

I also wish to query a number of powers that the Government have chosen to neither turn off nor suspend. Why is section 14, on continuing healthcare assessments, not being turned off, given that its counterpart, section 15, is? Section 37, on the temporary closure of educational institutions and childcare premises, has never been used, and I do not think its use is foreseeable. On section 50, on the power to suspend port operations, I do not think there is any anxiety about Border Force’s resourcing levels to cover our ports. Why has that not been turned off yet? On section 52, which many colleagues have raised, on events, gatherings and premises, there are surely better tools in other bits of legislation and regulations that we could use.

I hope that we will learn from this crisis. In particular, the points made by colleagues about a public inquiry are important. It would be very difficult for the Government to get independent feedback about why we have one of the worst death tolls in the world and one of the worst recessions in the world, but we simply must learn the lessons for the future, no matter how hard it is for Ministers to hear them.

I want to reflect on a couple of things that are still missing in the approach and in the road map. It is a really significant gap. For all the good news in the Budget for self-employed people, so many—possibly millions—are still ineligible for that support. Those excluded continue to receive almost nothing beyond social security—and some of them are not eligible for that because they have been saving, for example, to pay off tax liabilities. That is wrong, it has been wrong throughout, and I cannot understand why Ministers have not moved more quickly on it.

Similarly, we are letting down our nation’s carers. We clapped for them but now refuse to make a meaningful recognition of their contribution. The derisory 1% pay offer for NHS staff is a real-terms cut and completely unacceptable under these circumstances. Also we should not leave out of the conversation social care workers, working in the homes of some of our most vulnerable people, meeting the health needs of people who really need it, but putting their own at risk. What is their reward for that? A clap on a Tuesday and then a pay freeze in the Budget. That will mean that, for the 10th year in a row, their pay will be squeezed. That should be an enormous source of shame for the Government. I hope the Minister could reflect, and perhaps give us some good news on that when he stands up to speak.

To conclude, we will support this. We do not do so without reservation or with much pleasure, but it is the situation we find ourselves in today. There is nothing inevitable about it. The virus has been a problem for every country, but we have struggled particularly. So we need these measures so we can cautiously move forwards and make this lockdown our last.

Covid-19: Community Pharmacies

Graham Brady Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings for debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe, because that is where the microphones are.

Once we move on to Back-Bench contributions, I intend to begin with a time limit of three and a half minutes. Hopefully we will not need to make it shorter during the course of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed. The debate may now continue until quarter past 3.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this important debate.

The pandemic has shone a light on some of the more extreme challenges that we face as a society, but it has also highlighted the role of some of the institutions that support our communities—quietly, day in and day out. They are there for advice and support and offer a friendly and welcome face to those who are not reassured by going through online channels. Some people want a relationship but do not want to trouble their GP, and community pharmacies fill that role. These institutions have long been at the heart of all our constituencies, offering so much more than just prescriptions.

It would be remiss of me not to mention a few of the local pharmacies in my community and the incredible work that they have done and continue to do as part of the NHS family. Cohens, Coward’s and Murray’s, among others, are Furness institutions that have been remarkable in the support they have offered the community over the past year. Not only have pharmacies remained open over the past year; they are now supporting the vaccination programme.

A local pharmacist, Ben Merriman, was out vaccinating in Millom yesterday. I was told this morning of one pharmacist who was doing the same and, at the end of a very long day, found that their final patient was needle-phobic. It took an hour of gentle persuasion to get that final needle into the patient’s arm, which shows in one simple act the generosity and forbearance of the community pharmacist. This is a sector that we need to nurture and support, especially now.

Let us be honest: community pharmacies are struggling. While they have never been busier—significantly busy at the moment—90% of their business is pharmacy work and not retail, and that part of their business has dropped off. They have also seen a significant increase in their workload as the number of consultations they have taken on has increased since the start of the pandemic. Some of that is due to the approachability of community pharmacies, and some of it is due to word of mouth. If someone has had a good service, they are more than likely to tell their friends and family.

The Government’s support for this arm of the NHS is welcome, and the £370 million helped to deal with some of the immediate cash-flow issues at the start of the pandemic. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to engage with the PSNC to ensure that this vital arm of the NHS has the support that it needs to stay afloat. Ultimately, if pharmacies close—that is what is happening now and it will continue at a faster rate if it is allowed to progress—the patients of Furness and those in constituencies around the country, along with the rest of the NHS, will suffer.

No one could have predicted the pandemic and the massive impact that it would have on the NHS, the Exchequer and the country as a whole, but pharmacies were already under massive financial strain before this. I have already lost one pharmacy in Barrow and several others have cut their hours because of financial cutbacks. It is worth looking at where the bulk of pharmacy closures have taken place in the past four years. The vast majority sit in the most deprived areas of our country, where we need to level up healthcare the most. Squaring that circle is the challenge that my hon. Friends in the Treasury face—one that they are no doubt alive to.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said when she opened the debate, community pharmacies are the front door to the NHS. We need to make sure that that door stays firmly open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate and on being determined that it would not be a hot air debate but one in which we actually work together to find some solutions.

Although many GPs’ surgeries closed their doors at the start of the pandemic, pharmacies have stayed open and even increased their hours of operation in order to meet the extra demand for their services. They have been a lifeline for the elderly and vulnerable, delivering medicines to those shielding or self-isolating. Many pharmacies in Southend have also supported care homes, sourcing medication where there were shortages of end-of-life medicines. When needed, they have also assisted with the reuse of medicines in care homes under national protocols.

Working with local general practitioners, chemists are now processing the majority of prescriptions electronically, reducing the number of face-to-face visits that are required. The discharge medicines service has just rolled out to Southend pharmacies, so that they are able to see all the medicines that a patient has been given upon being discharged from hospital, which improves safety and reduces potential errors. Many pharmacies have also joined the vaccination programme. Their experience in handling large numbers of patients effectively has been vital in delivering the first jab to the elderly and clinically vulnerable.

Having visited a number of pharmacies in my constituency before the coronavirus outbreak, I am aware of the pride that they feel in serving their community and of their ambitions for the future. Frenchs Chemist in Leigh-on-Sea suggested running a phlebotomy clinic three days a week and installing a treatment room with ultrasound scanning facilities, so that many routine scans can be carried out without the need for a hospital visit. Derix Healthcare Pharmacy, also in Leigh-on-Sea, is keen to take on more work, such as producing blister packs on behalf of the hospital, which is a very time-consuming task, and has offered to perform medicine use reviews and other services currently carried out in hospitals, freeing up staff time on wards and in out-patient departments.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on liver health, I have worked closely with our brilliant secretariat, the Hepatitis C Trust, to promote the delivery of testing and treatment for hepatitis C in community settings. A report published by the APPG in 2018 showed that, in order to eliminate the disease, levels of testing and diagnosis needs to be much higher. Offering testing and treatment in community pharmacies presents an important opportunity to access at-risk groups who are already attending for other services. Hepatitis C is a major cause of liver cirrhosis and cancer, and in order to eliminate it as a public health concern by 2030, those who cannot be reached by traditional healthcare settings must be offered more help locally.

Of course, all this comes at a price, and many pharmacies are struggling to continue the level of service they currently offer. Coping with the pressure of additional demand during the covid-19 crisis has meant many extra costs in staffing and PPE and an increased cost of medicines. The advance payments made during the pandemic, which allowed them to cope with additional demand on their services, were welcome but will have to be paid back—a total of £370 million—putting pressure on pharmacies to cut services and opening hours. This is a real opportunity for our wonderful pharmacies to deliver even more services than they have been given the power to do at the moment.

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I thank everybody for keeping to time so well, making sure that we have sufficient time left for each of the Front-Bench spokespeople to have up to 10 minutes to wind up, and for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) to have at least a couple of minutes at the end to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

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, we will suspend until half-past 3.

Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We of course stand ready to put in place financial support for the devolved nations, should that be needed to tackle outbreaks such as this. We have a constant conversation with the devolved authorities. For instance, I speak to Robin Swann, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, on a regular basis. I was talking to him on Saturday morning about the supply of vaccines, as the hon. Gentleman might imagine. It is something that we work very closely together on.

The fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right: it is by working together as one United Kingdom that we are managing to do this on vaccines. If we want a shining example of why this country performs so well when we work together, we just need to look to the vaccine programme being rolled out in every corner of the country, in every locality, with all nations working together in a single combined mission. It is a celebrated example of why this country works well when we are better together.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for repeating his commitment to ensuring that schools can reopen as soon as it is safe to do so. As he reflects on that, will he keep in his mind the sobering words of Professor Russell Viner, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, who said to the Education Committee that when we close schools, we close children’s lives, and went on to refer to 75 international studies that suggest significant mental health damage for children? Will he reiterate the huge importance of putting children’s mental health and wellbeing alongside the other onerous responsibilities that he bears?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been clear in describing the negative impact of school closures and also the negative impact of the virus getting out of control. The challenge we have is to try to mitigate both those problems, and it is the vaccine that is the best way through.

Public Health

Graham Brady Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to answer these interventions briefly, but they are important because people want to know what is the way out of these restrictions, and that is absolutely central to the case I am making.

The fill and finish plant in Wrexham is doing a brilliant job, but it can fill and finish vials only at the speed at which the vaccine material, which is a biological material, not a chemical compound, can be produced. It is doing a brilliant job at the pace that it needs to go. AstraZeneca and Pfizer are manufacturing the material itself, and they are also working as fast as they can, and I pay tribute to them and their manufacturing teams, who are doing a terrific job.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Approving these regulations today would allow for lockdown for three months, until the end of March. The Secretary of State will have heard my exchange with the Prime Minister earlier, when the Prime Minister said that he did not think we would have to wait that long for an opportunity to choose whether to end the regulations. Will the Secretary of State go further and give a commitment to a further vote at the end of January and the end of February, so that the House will have control over what is happening?

[Matt Hancock]

While these regulations do provide for new restrictions until the end of March, that is not because we expect the full national lockdown to continue until then, but to allow the steady, controlled and evidence-led move down through the tiers on a local basis. Those tier changes do require a vote in Parliament. The restrictions will therefore be kept under continuous review; there is a statutory requirement to review them every two weeks and a legal obligation to remove them if they are no longer deemed necessary to limit the transmission of the virus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

May I preface my remarks by saying that I accept that we are in a serious situation? It is worse in some areas than in others, but hospital admissions are rising across the country, albeit that improved treatments mean that fewer people, as a percentage, are progressing from admission through to intensive care units, and fewer people as a proportion are dying as a result of the virus. Therefore, some of the pressure, I understand, is on general beds more than on ICU.

In this context, restrictions may be necessary. We should certainly all take personal responsibility, and I share my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s enthusiasm for an effective and rapid vaccination programme. But that does not absolve this House of its responsibility to protect the liberties of the British people or to hold the Government to account. Neither of those things would be consistent with approving regulations that would allow a full lockdown to be in place for the next three months, to 31 March. Today, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given me reassuring words that they do not want that, but the regulations give the power to decide that to the Government, not to this House. I urge the Secretary of State again to reconsider and see whether he might be able to promise a further vote at the end of January and at the end of February, so that this House will decide whether these extreme controls remain in place for that long, not the Government.

I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about getting schools back as soon as realistically possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I have considerable concerns about the fundamental human rights that are being taken away under these measures, including the right to see our children or grandchildren. These really are the most basic rights, and are now to be taken away for up to a year for some people. These points are critical, but I will not repeat them.

Finally, let me say to the Secretary of State that people will tolerate restrictions where they can see a genuine rationale—some common sense—behind them. I return to some of the questions that I was asking back in the spring, during the first lockdown. Why does it make sense that I can buy flowers in a supermarket, but an open-air market cannot sell them? Why is it illegal to go out for a walk on my own twice in the same day? And why, when it is legal for two members of the same household to take a walk across a golf course, is it illegal for them to play golf while they are doing it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I do not believe that my hon. Friend is as he describes himself, but what I do think is quite clear. We are saying that people should stay at home, unless their reason for leaving home is on the very clear list of essential reasons for doing so. That covers the eligibility of the children of critical workers to be in school, healthcare appointments and, indeed, exercise. We really need to make sure that it is absolutely clear that, other than for those specific reasons, people should stay at home. That is what we need to do in order to control this raging virus. That is the message that all of us need to convey to our constituents.

[Sir Graham Brady]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

I have very little time and want to cover more of the points that have been raised, including by my hon. Friend.

As hon. Members have said, this national lockdown is different from previous lockdowns because we have the vaccine and the end is in sight. We have already vaccinated more than 1.3 million people. That includes the nearly one in four of those over 80 who have had their first jab. By the middle of February, we expect to have offered the first vaccine dose to everyone in the top four priority group identified by JCVI—namely, care home residents and staff; people over 70; all frontline NHS and care staff; and the clinically extremely vulnerable. That answers the question posed by the shadow Health Secretary as to when NHS frontline staff will have the opportunity to be vaccinated, as they, together with social care staff, are in the group to be offered the vaccination by mid-February.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked how the vaccine will be offered. He will know that vaccination is not mandatory. We are educating, encouraging and informing people of the important reasons why they should step forward and have the vaccine. That is the way in which we are going about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) rightly said that we should stop at nothing to get people vaccinated, and I could not agree more. That is why my hon. Friend the vaccination deployment Minister is working with the NHS on getting millions of people vaccinated in just a matter of weeks, involving hospitals, GPs, community pharmacies and a workforce that includes thousands of volunteers, including health professionals returning to the frontline to play their part. As the Health Secretary confirmed earlier, we have already acted to reduce some of the bureaucracy and, in particular, some of the training models required for those NHS returners, so that we are ready to vaccinate as fast as the vaccine can be supplied.

I have heard several hon. Members call for more data on the vaccination roll-out. I assure them that weekly data will be published tomorrow, and the publication of daily data will start next week. That data will show our accelerating vaccination programme protecting more people day by day, so that in time we will be able to lift many of the restrictions before the House today.

In conclusion, there are difficult weeks ahead for all of us—especially for those working on the frontline in health and social care, whom we cannot thank enough—but we are on the final stretch with the end in sight, so we must keep our resolve and get behind these restrictions, which are needed to control the virus until the vaccine has reached those that it needs to. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.

Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. In fact, I was talking about the vaccination programme to the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Health only this morning, because making sure that we reach all those who need vaccinations, according to clinical need, is critical, but we also need then to persuade them to take the vaccine. There is a huge amount of work on tackling misinformation. The most important thing is to have the positive information out there. I thank all those who have gone public about their vaccine so far—we all saw the wonderful photograph of Sir Ian McKellen, and I thank Prue Leith, who went public with her vaccination. It is absolutely terrific to see people celebrating the fact that they are getting vaccinated and therefore encouraging other people to do the same.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

This statement will be greeted with dismay in Greater Manchester, where we have had severe restrictions for nine months and where rates in nine of the 10 boroughs are below the national average. My constituents have behaved responsibly and our rates are lower than those in neighbouring Warrington or Cheshire, which have been put into tier 2, and they are also lower than they are in Bristol, which has been moved from tier 3 to tier 2 today. What exactly do we have to be moved out of tier 3?

[Matt Hancock]

I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment at this decision. We looked very closely at Trafford, Stockport, Tameside and nearby High Peak, and the proposal to take a different decision for them from the one that had been taken for their near neighbours. The challenge is that each time we have done that in the past, we have then seen cases rebound, and there continues to be significant pressure on the NHS in the north-west, including in Manchester. I know that my hon. Friend and I have proposed different approaches on this one, and I look forward to working with him and people right across Manchester to get this sorted.

Dementia: Covid-19

Graham Brady Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am very pleased to have sponsored this debate alongside the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Everyone here has a purpose and something to say about this issue.

We know from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that of the 475 deaths in March and April—just two months—in Northern Ireland, a third were attributed to dementia on the death certificate. The impact on those who have dementia is clearly greater than elsewhere. In addition to thousands of tragic deaths in care homes, the effects of social isolation are a big issue: 70% of care home residents have some form of dementia, and the prevention of visits to care homes is having a hugely detrimental impact on their lives.

Contact with family and friends is vital to the wellbeing of people with dementia. Some 82% of participants in an Alzheimer’s Society survey reported a deterioration in the symptoms of people with dementia. People with dementia deserve better. The contribution of loved ones to their care and wellbeing should be acknowledged by the Government and reflected in the guidance to care homes on safe visiting.

I will mention one family, whose story is very real. They wrote to me:

“Our mum sadly passed away in September. We were not with her when she died. We had not been inside her home for over six months. In all that time, we saw her through a window. She didn’t understand why we were stood outside and kept telling us to come in. We were unable to hold her hand and unable to kiss goodbye.”

I understand that advice given to the Government by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in September stated that the transmission risk from visitors was low. That SAGE advice, which says that people could visit homes and there was less chance of infection from visitors, must be implemented and released by the Government. Why not give the family and the person in the home a wee bit of compassion in their time of need? The Government do not allow for loved ones to provide the personal care that the residents so desperately need.

I urge the Minister to implement the Alzheimer’s Society’s recommendations for ensuring that care homes are safe and adequate for the needs of people with dementia. The Alzheimer’s Society study on this put forward recommendations. We should follow its knowledge and the science. There have been some innovations, for example the initiative led by HammondCare. During its pilot service, funded by Innovate UK, HammondCare recorded highly positive outcomes for people living with dementia and care teams, such as reducing certain behaviours and carer stress, building capacity in the sector and reducing the use of statutory services. Plans are being explored to offer a subscription service across the UK to support care teams. The Minister may wish to explore that. The innovation in that pilot scheme has shown a way of doing this.

I ask the Minister to outline the scope of the key worker pilot in England. How will it be rolled out, and when and how will it be evaluated? Given the updated implementation of the care partner model that we have in Northern Ireland—it is always good to learn from each other—will the Minister ensure that the emotional and physical care needs of people with dementia living in care homes will be met, and confirm that it will not be another eight months before people with dementia and their loved ones are reunited?

Dementia is a subject close to my heart. I hope the Minister will listen to the experts and the families, and do all she can better to connect people affected by dementia.

[Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Before we move on to the wind-ups, I remind hon. Members that the debate will end at 4.33 pm and we hope to give the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his assessment: Hartlepool is in tier 2 at the moment and I hope that we can keep it there, but we will keep it under review. The best exit strategy for anywhere that wants to go into a lower tier is for everybody to follow the rules, respect social distancing and try to get the case rate coming down, but, of course, for the whole nation—indeed for the whole world—the best exit strategy is a combination of mass testing and a vaccine, and we are working incredibly hard to deliver both as quickly as feasibly possible. We need a long-term solution to covid as well as the short-term action that we are having to take.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Greater Manchester has lived under harsh additional restrictions for three months. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that lockdowns themselves cost lives as well as livelihoods, and that they take a terrible toll on mental health, particularly of the young? Does he accept that it is better to do these things, if they must be done, by consent? In that regard, will he confirm that these measures will be brought to the House for approval, and that in any case they will end with the sunset after 28 days?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend that these things are better done by consent, and in the parts of the country where the whole local area has supported the measures, through getting the right messages out to people about their personal responsibility, we do tend to get a better response and see the case rate starting to come down. That is one of the many reasons why we worked so hard to try to get an agreement across Greater Manchester and why I regret that we have not been able to, although, as I say, our door remains open. On the point about consent, of course these measures will be brought to the House, and they sunset after 28 days. We keep them under review, because we would not want to keep these measures in place a moment longer than they are needed.

Covid-19 Update

Graham Brady Excerpts

Programme motion
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. The Welsh Government respond to the circumstances in Wales as they see fit, according to the devolution settlement. As I was saying to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), we are absolutely prepared, ready and engaged in supporting communities and businesses right across the UK and in supporting individuals who, through no fault of their own, fall on what can be incredibly hard times because of the impact of coronavirus.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows that pubs, bingo halls and gyms have gone to enormous lengths to ensure that they offer a safe environment, and many of us in Greater Manchester and elsewhere are sceptical that closing those institutions would make a significant difference to the spread of the virus, but can I ask him why the Government will not extend the additional resources for Test and Trace independently of those measures? Surely, it would be beneficial to do so.

[Matt Hancock]

Across Greater Manchester and across Trafford, we had extended further support for Test and Trace before the tier system came in. We have engaged to make sure that we get the benefits of local teams accessing and, because they have boots on the ground, finding people whom the national team simply cannot find, and that will continue. Of course, the negotiations and the discussions about the future of what extra we need to do in Greater Manchester continue. I know that my hon. Friend requires further persuasion that some of the actions that appear to be starting to work elsewhere should be put in place. I would gently point him to the fact that we did manage to level off the increase in infections in Bolton when we brought in firmer measures, but they have since then started to go up again after we removed those measures. Nevertheless he is absolutely right—absolutely right—that the best way we can tackle this is by people taking personal responsibility for reducing their social interaction to reduce the risk of spread, and I hope that we can all metaphorically link arms and get that message across.