Tobacco Control Plan

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs on the market, if not the most addictive, and perfectly legal to consume. The issue is whether someone, once addicted to nicotine, can quit. The damage is done not necessary by the nicotine, but by the delivery mechanism by which someone gets the nicotine.

Anything that reduces the risk of cancer or other related diseases has got to be good news. We can migrate people and encourage them to quit. Ideally, they give up completely. However, because it is so addictive they may need help and assistance to do that. Vaping and non-heated tobacco are ways of migrating people to safer means of delivering the nicotine they desire.

Taking up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), ending smoking is essential if we are to level up the nation’s health after the pandemic. We need to reduce health inequalities between rich and poor, and increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035, in line with the Government’s manifesto commitments.

As well as being necessary, tobacco control measures are popular with voters for every main party, including the Conservative party, which both my hon. Friend the Minister and I represent. Results from the annual YouGov survey of over 10,000 adults in England, funded by Action on Smoking and Health, show that more than three quarters of the public support the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition, and eight out of 10 members of the public support Government intervention to limit smoking.

The Government have the full support of the APPG in delivering the smoke-free 2030 ambition. However, as the Government stated in the 2019 prevention Green Paper, achieving that ambition will require “bold action.” Inequalities in smoking rates have grown in recent years, not shrunk. In order to be smoke-free by 2030, we need to reduce smoking by two thirds in just a decade—we have only nine years left to achieve that—and by three quarters for smokers in routine and manual occupations. At current rates of decline, Cancer Research UK has estimated we will miss the target by seven years, and double that for the poorest in society.

There are still nearly 6 million smokers in England. We will only achieve a smoke-free 2030 by motivating more smokers to make quit attempts, using the most effective quitting aids, while also reducing the number of children and young adults who start smoking each year. With 1,500 people dying from smoking-related diseases every week and less than a decade to achieve a smoke-free 2030, there is no time to waste.

Disappointingly, with the end of the year in sight, there is still no sign of the tobacco control plan that was promised this year. My first question to my hon. Friend the Minister, therefore, is whether she can she set out a timeline for the publication of the next tobacco control plan. But the tobacco control plan is only as strong as the measures it includes. That is why the APPG was disappointed that the Government rejected the amendments to the Health and Care Bill tabled by my friend the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and supported by myself and other officers of the APPG, in Committee.

Those amendments would have closed the loopholes in the regulations that expose children to the insidious marketing tactics of the tobacco industry, provided funding for tobacco control and strengthened the regulation of tobacco. As it stands, the Bill fails to include a single mention of smoking or tobacco and represents a major missed opportunity to introduce key policies for achieving a smoke-free 2030. That is why we have retabled the amendments on Report. I hope the Government will look at them sympathetically, because the Bill is the ideal opportunity for them to deliver their 2019 commitment to finish the job and introduce the legislation that is needed if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. My second question is whether the Minister will commit to considering the adoption of tobacco amendments to the Health and Care Bill on Report.

My next area is the “polluter pays” levy. The bold action that the Government acknowledge is needed cannot be taken without investment. The Health Foundation estimates that a minimum £1 billion is needed to restore public health funding to its 2015 levels, with more needed to level up public health across the country. While there was some positive news on tobacco taxation in the recent spending review, which we welcomed, unfortunately the Government opted not to increase the public health grant to local authorities. As a consequence, we need to establish new sources of funding.

The Government promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. This scheme would mirror the approach taken in the United States, where user fee legislation raises $711 million annually from the tobacco manufacturers, with the funds then used to cover the cost of stop smoking campaigns, tobacco control policy development, implementation and enforcement.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I must say that I am opposed to punitive taxation policies, because I do not think they work. Does the hon. Member accept that tobacco companies already pay the Government £13 billion? An additional levy could lead—and most likely would lead, as the evidence shows—to a significant increase in criminality, because instead of paying for taxable product, people will buy smuggled product. Is that not a huge worry that he has about introducing a levy?

[Bob Blackman]

I will come to some of these issues in a few moments, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient and let me build the case. Obviously, it has been estimated by ASH that the funding needed for a comprehensive tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030 would cost around £266 million for England and £315 million in total for the UK. A levy could raise around £700 million from the tobacco manufacturers, to be spent on tobacco control and other public health initiatives. The devolved Governments would also have the ability to opt into the scheme, should they so wish.

Such a scheme is more than justified in response to market failure that allows an industry, whose products kill consumers when used as intended, to make exorbitant profits. While net operating profits for most consumer staples, such as food, beverages and household goods, stands at 12% to 20%, Imperial Brands in the UK enjoyed net operating profits of 71% in 2019. That is £71 in profit for every £100 in sales. In 2018, it is estimated that tobacco manufacturers made over £900 million in profits in the UK alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as the chair of The Gallaher Trust, which was set up half a dozen years ago in the wake of the closure of tobacco production in Northern Ireland. It was named after Tom Gallaher, a huge industrialist in Northern Ireland who created tens of thousands of jobs. Although the charity has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion, sale or development of tobacco—it is a skills development charity, of which I am an honorary and unremunerated chairman—I think it is important to put my interest on record, because of the association that people may draw from that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate. He has presented the arguments in the way that he always does, very persuasively. It is important that we have had a very good, healthy debate. It has showed that we are probably all on the same page. We want to get to the same finish line, but there are differences in nuance and in how we get there. I think it is important that we explore those differences and we try to get there in the best, most efficient and effective way.

Any tobacco control plan must be evidence-based, not based on emotions. Evidence is key. Innovations to support quitting smoking are crucial to the plan. We have heard something of the detail from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and others who are very keen that we develop innovation to ensure a systematic quitting of smoking. The evidence shows that high punitive taxation policies simply do not work. For someone growing up in a deprived society, whose parents have low wages, and where cigarettes—a lawful product in the local shops—are nearly £15 a pack, the temptation to purchase a pack for a fiver from someone round the local pub is huge and significant. The real thrust of any tobacco control plan must go hand in hand with a plan that addresses criminality. Aside from one or two vague mentions of criminality, that is what is absent from the plan.

We have to focus on criminality. We can tax this product until it squeaks even more, but unless we address the criminality that lies behind illegal product and illegal product sales across the United Kingdom, I am afraid that consumption rates will stay at a very high, stubborn level. I do not believe that there are fewer than 10 million smokers in the United Kingdom. I think that anyone who believes that is in cloud cuckoo land. Walk down any street in this city and count the first 100 people. I would say that in excess of 20 people on average are smoking. That is a rudimentary calculation. In other places it is considerably higher—in night culture, for instance. Let us face the fact that smoking consumption is probably at a much higher rate than the figures suggest. Therefore, all the punitive taxation policies that have been adopted by the United Kingdom—and they are the highest in the world—are not addressing the stubborn fact that people are continuing to smoke.

Let us pivot and get on to other counteracting measures. Where do those other measures rest? I believe there is a role for partnership with experts. Three things need to be done. We need to explore, develop and ensure that new products are brought to the market expeditiously. We need to engage a huge amount of effort in education, especially for young people and women. We need to make sure there is adequate, sensible and robust enforcement against criminality.

As has been mentioned today, there is a full range of new products already on the market to ensure that less harmful products are available to smokers, helping them to reduce their habit and get away from smoking. I applaud companies that have created e-cigarettes, nicotine patches, heated products and vaping, to encourage people away from the very harmful addiction to tobacco and nicotine. Those less harmful alternatives must be pursued and we must encourage their use, not discourage it. Indeed, the points that were made earlier regarding misinformation about those products should be addressed sensibly by central Government. There must be co-operation with responsible companies that want to make their lawful product and pay tax on it. That co-operation should allow research and development to happen, to enable them to get away from manufacturing the single product that they currently produce.

Some mention has been made today of the levy, and it was suggested that there should be a new levy on tobacco manufacturing companies. As I said earlier, we in the United Kingdom pay the highest taxes in the world on a pack of cigarettes—I think that 90% of what we pay for cigarettes goes to the Government—but that high tax has not solved the problem by reducing consumption. What happens is that people are driven towards buying unlawful products, thinking that that is a harmless activity. Many people who purchase cheap cigarettes think that they come over from mainland Europe in a white van and do no one any harm, but of course most of those products are illegally made. They are not made by the tobacco companies. What is inside those products is beyond tobacco and therefore, incredibly, they are even more harmful than cigarettes. People do not necessarily realise it, but selling those products is a huge and significant crime in our kingdom.

In the last number of years, over £1 billion-worth of illicit cigarettes have been sold in the United Kingdom. This is not a problem exclusive to Northern Ireland; in fact, we are the minority. This is a multi-million pound problem across the whole United Kingdom, and we have to get to grips with it as soon as we can. That multi-million pound crime syndicate needs to be broken up and destroyed.

Regarding taxation, in 2019-20 tobacco alone accounted for £11.25 billion of the Government’s revenues. However, if we set against that the criminal sales of tobacco, we see that the Government lost almost £3 billion in tobacco revenue. There is a huge gap that could be made up. On the point about a levy, if there was proper enforcement against the criminals, an extra £3 billion would be available—legitimately raised from legitimate sales—for things such as the promotion of education, research and development. Imposing another levy on the tobacco companies is lazy and would not address the problem of crime; indeed, that problem would continue to grow. Until we face up to that, we will keep coming back to this House—year in and year out, decade in and decade out—and inflating taxation but seeing consumption remain stubbornly high.

Let us address the real issue of properly attacking the criminals. In 2020, HMRC gathered an additional £1.4 billion through its border control activities. That was an untapped source of new revenue, which came about largely as a result of Brexit and having more control of our borders, but also because of the pandemic and the inability to travel to and from the continent to bring illegal products in. The Government were able to raise revenue under those circumstances. With a little bit of ingenuity, they could continue to raise that additional £1.4 billion in previously untapped sources by clamping down on gangs and gathering the revenue that the public are entitled to have gathered on their behalf; that is something that HMRC should do proudly.

As Members know, there is a £10,000 on-the-spot fine for criminals engaged in evasion of tax on tobacco. People might say that that is a very high fine, but it is not. A case of illicit cigarettes is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds in illicit sales to a criminal, and a van full is worth over £1 million. Why is the on-the-spot fine not something like £50,000 or £100,000, in view of the sums that the criminals make? For every van that HMRC captures, at least 20 or 30 get through, so let us make sure that we have proper enforcement. The high price of a pack of cigarettes simply encourages people, especially those with less disposable income, to purchase illicit products.

I understand the point that was made about the age limit, but if we are going to change the age limit for smoking, we have to look at the whole panoply of age limits across the United Kingdom—for alcohol consumption, driving, betting and smoking. It would be incredibly difficult to enforce different age limits rather than having a standardised one. If a 20-year-old tells a shopkeeper that they are 21 and they want to buy a pack of cigarettes, that would be incredibly difficult to enforce. Shopkeepers already find it hard to tell an 18-year-old from a 14-year-old in some circumstances.

Let us make sure that we have a standardised age for sales rather than different ages for different products. I do not think the Government are looking at that point, but it will no doubt gather momentum, because it seems to be an easy solution. None of these easy solutions work. Hard attacks against criminal enterprises are where we will make a significant difference.

We need to avoid the danger of virtue signalling—I am not saying any of that has gone on today; we have had a good, positive and practical debate—and move towards evidence-based solutions, including by encouraging companies to make less harmful product available to the public, by enforcing and controlling the legitimate enterprises of business and by ensuring that criminals are not allowed to get away with their multibillion-pound criminal enterprise. Otherwise, we should really go the whole hog and ban tobacco altogether in the United Kingdom. To achieve some of the goals that have been set out, that is where this debate has to be taken. It is not being taken there at present, but we need to get real on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The burden of tobacco harms is not shared equally: smoking rates are far higher in poorer areas of the country, and among the lowest socioeconomic groups. Alongside the tragedy created by illness and early deaths, the NHS bears the heavy financial burden of £2.5 billion every year from smoking. In 2019-20, smoking was responsible for nearly half a million hospital admissions and around 64,000 deaths.

The Government have set the bold ambition for England to be smoke free by 2030. To support that ambition, we have been building on the successes of our current tobacco control plan. We will soon publish a new plan with an even sharper focus on tackling health disparities. That new plan will form a vital part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and will set out a comprehensive package of new policy proposals and regulatory changes, to enable us to meet our smoke-free 2030 ambition.

We are, of course, carefully considering the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Our new tobacco control plan will look to further strengthen our regulatory framework. We are exploring various regulatory proposals, including those put forward as amendments to the Health and Care Bill. We will conduct further research and build a robust evidence base in support of such measures, and will include the strongest proposals in the new plan.

One continuing concern is that one in 10 pregnant women are still smokers at the time of delivery, which is something that the Government are determined to tackle. The maternity transformation programme contains some important measures, and we have made a commitment under our NHS long-term plan that pregnant mothers and their partners will be offered NHS-funded treatment to help them to quit. I know that issue is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Our new plan will continue to have a strong focus on pregnancy and will encourage more innovation and new approaches to help mothers to quit.

The evidence is clear that e-cigarettes are less harmful to health than smoking. It remains the goal of the Government to maximise the opportunities presented by e-cigarettes to reduce smoking while managing any risks. Our regulatory framework enables smokers to use e-cigarettes to help them to quit, but we do not want to encourage non-smokers and young people to take up those products. In the current tobacco control plan we have actioned the MHRA to help bring medicinal e-cigarettes to the UK market. On 29 October, the MHRA published updated guidance to encourage manufacturers to do so.

Stop-smoking services remain at the heart of our tobacco control strategy, producing high quit rates of 59% after four weeks. Since 2000, they have helped nearly 5 million people to quit. We have protected the public health grant over the course of the spending review, to ensure that local authorities can continue to invest in stop-smoking services and campaigns specific to their areas. We will continue to support local authorities to prioritise those services.

The UK has been recognised as a global leader in tobacco control. We are proud to be a member of the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. My officials played an active role in the ninth conference of the parties—COP9—last week, and reaffirmed our commitment to deal with the global tobacco pandemic. It was a robust meeting, with more people attending than ever. In my video statement to COP9, I set out the UK commitment to having comprehensive tobacco control policies, including a strong regulatory framework for e-cigarettes. Our commitment to the WHO FCTC is further demonstrated through the overseas development funding we contribute to the FCTC 2030 project, which is now entering its sixth year. That project directly supports the implementation of the WHO FCTC in 31 low and middle-income countries, helping to reduce the burden of death and disease from tobacco.

I will now address some of the issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about restrictions imposed during covid. Covid has highlighted the health disparities across the country. Our ambition to be smoke free by 2030 will play a major role in tackling those disparities. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that I am conscious of the urgency of the publication of the tobacco control plan. However, I am determined that the plan will have robust and effective measures. He also highlighted measures that the APPG would like to see included. Along with my officials, I am looking carefully at each measure put forward.

Tobacco taxation was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), as well as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). That is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. However, the Department continues to work with HMT to assess the most effective regulatory means to support the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition, which includes exploring a potential future levy.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maggie Throup]

I am a bit short of time.

On raising the age from 18 to 21, we know how important the period between the ages of 18 and 21 is for those who may experiment with tobacco. We will include a focus on protecting young people and adults from the harms of tobacco within our tobacco control plan. As I have already indicated, I am ambitious for our new plan.

On the Health and Care Bill, at this stage we do not feel that it is the right Bill for the suggested measures without a full assessment. Members should rest assured that they will be fully considered as the tobacco control plan is finalised.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked about the post-implementation reviews. The Department will publish its response in the coming months. I make no excuse for the delay. We had more than 5,000 responses to that review, and that was coupled with the pressures that my Department has experienced on covid-19. I reassure colleagues that it is on our agenda and we will publish in due course.

The hon. Member for City of Durham also asked about the investigations into menthol. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is investigating a range of cigarettes to determine if the flavour of menthol is noticeable. Once that study is complete, we will explore whether further action is needed against companies that have breached regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby asked a number of questions. I understand that the ONS will publish smoking prevalence data for 2020 next month.

As I have already said, COP9 was one of the best attended conferences of the parties so far. I understand that there was a real buzz and an appetite to address the harms from tobacco and implement the framework convention on tobacco control, which I am sure will be welcomed by everybody in the room.

My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) spoke about e-cigarettes. The Government are clear that we only support the use of e-cigarettes as a tool for smokers who are trying to quit, not as a route for people to take up smoking by another means. Our approach to e-cigarettes has been and will remain pragmatic and evidence-based.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South talked about the environment that those who are attempting to quit find themselves in. Vaping is not covered by the smoke-free legislation. It is down to individual businesses to determine how they consider the guidelines.

I extend my thanks to hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate. It has been very constructive and there is clearly cross-party support. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to a smoke-free 2030. As we build back better from the pandemic, our aim is to make smoking truly a thing of the past and level up society.

Tobacco Control Plan

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and lovely to see you in the Chair. I refer Members to my registered interests. I am the chairman of the Gallaher charitable trust, which was formed after the closure of a tobacco company in Northern Ireland.

Let me turn to the subject of the debate. Facts are stubborn things. We all appreciate that, and we must ensure that any actions we take to address facts are based on evidence. I am a non-smoker. I do not encourage people to smoke. I do not want people to smoke, and I recognise the impact that smoking has on people’s lives, but like many substances, tobacco is a lawful product, and I will not tell other adults what they should do or not do with lawful products.

Tobacco is one of the most highly regulated products and the most highly taxed product in the UK—about 90% of the cost of an average packet of cigarettes is taxation. That tax disadvantages poorer households in my constituency and across this country than the most affluent. The UK tax regime is designed to control tobacco and the sale of tobacco, but it has had the opposite impact. It has driven up the price of the product and encouraged smuggling of illicit product. Many people have made the wrong choice to purchase that illegal product. Therefore, under the current mechanism, everyone is a loser. It is not working.

On 2 June—just nine days ago—the Northern Ireland Border Force, at the real border in Northern Ireland, which is the land border, seized 4.4 tonnes of illegal tobacco, which, if sold, would have stolen from you, Mrs Miller, and me and our taxpaying constituents £7.24 million in unpaid duty. Tobacco control measures ought not to be about trophy taxation or gimmicks, but should be primarily about reducing consumption by good education and good enforcement, and secondly about minimising crime by directing resources to the tackling of criminality associated with activities related to illegal tobacco.

None of the control measures addresses that issue seriously. Government policy has failed to do that, and I believe that today’s proposals fail to do it. Instead, they are about unnecessary tax and minor tinkering such as putting another written warning on the cigarette stick. When the cigarette is in a person’s mouth, it is too late to put such a warning to them.

HMRC already generates £11.8 billion in tax on tobacco, yet it loses almost £2 billion in revenue annually in illegal sales of tobacco product. That is because the control plan is one-dimensional and, frankly, stupid. It does not work. Since 2000, tobacco smuggling has stolen from you, Mrs Miller, and me and our taxpaying constituents a revenue loss of—wait for it—£47.2 billion. That has been stolen from us by tobacco smugglers. Surely we can have a plan that, instead of punitively taxing a lawful product more, lets consumers see that money being spent on tackling this international, multibillion-pound crime of racketeering. Imagine a control plan that, over the next 10 years, would deliver £40 billion in revenue to hon. Members’ constituencies. Imagine what we could do for hospitals, schools and the defence budget. Imagine what we could do with the overseas aid budget.

I want the Government to be creative and to stand up to people who say, “Just put on more tax,” because clearly that does not work. Frankly, the control plan will not save one life from the effects of smoking, will not stop one smoker from smoking, and will not stop one smuggler from bringing in illegal products. If the Government want, unintentionally, to fill the pockets of organised crime gangs, undermine legitimate businesses and ruin small shops throughout the country, they should stick with the plan, but they should not be smug about it, because the plan is not working.

Smoke-free Society by 2030

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) on the way in which he brought this motion to the House; it is very timely and was very well introduced. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the chairman of the Gallaher Trust, a job creation and skills development charity in my constituency, set up after the last tobacco manufacturing plant sadly closed there some years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the point that tobacco harm reduction is a strong story for the United Kingdom to tell. That is a very solid line on which the Minister should listen and respond. I am sure other Members will talk about the opportunities of vaping for small companies, whether they be retail outlets or manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom, and for helping to reduce the harm associated with tobacco. That is a strong piece, and it needs to be looked at. It is challenging, because people just want tobacco usage to end. Of course, anyone who has been a smoker knows that it is just not that simple, and that there have to be harm reduction programmes in place.

I also refer briefly to security and criminality. I have encouraged the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to continue to work closely with the companies at the heart of producing these products. Whether it is the tobacco manufacturers or spin-off companies that develop these products, it is important that we work with credible, accountable companies that can be held to account.

Last year, The House magazine and Dods very kindly helped to sponsor a programme to put out a report called “The Gathering Storm”, published by Japan Tobacco International. It looked at the issues to do with criminality around this entire sector and how the criminals are alive to every opportunity to bite into this, to seize these opportunities and pollute this area. It is absolutely important that the Government are alert to the opportunities that criminals see and face them down bit by bit. The only way they can do that is in conjunction with the large companies that know exactly what they are talking about, that work in and understand this sector and have an interest in protecting legitimate trade, not in promoting illegitimate activity. I hope the Government will put resources in place to assist with that.

Finally, my comments would not be complete if I did not mention the Northern Ireland protocol. You may ask, Mr Rosindell, “How can you bring that into this debate?” Put simply, it is about consumer choice. Companies have already indicated that they cannot bring to Northern Ireland the same products as they can bring to, and make in, the United Kingdom. Consumer choice is not available to the consumer in Northern Ireland, whether it be for actual tobacco products or for spin-off vaping products. They are not going to be available in Northern Ireland because of EU regulations pertaining to, and chaining down, one part of this United Kingdom. It is a disgrace. My message to the Government after every meeting I have with them is to please fix the protocol—fix it and fix it fast, because it is permeating every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.

Covid-19 Update

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to see any country recognise the life-saving value of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as we recognise the life-saving value of all that have passed assessment by our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. We know that this vaccine is not only safe but is saving lives and stopping hospitalisations right across this country right now. I pay tribute to the scientists behind it, who have done so much work to get it to this place, and it is simply fantastic to see in the data with the naked eye that these vaccines are saving lives.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the temerity and leadership to identify early on that vaccination and getting a good vaccine was the way ahead. Here we are, leading the way for not only Europe but the world. Indeed, a few weeks ago, the Irish Government and Europe tried to steal vaccines out of the arms of people in Northern Ireland because they were so jealous of how well the United Kingdom was doing. With that in mind, what will the Secretary of State do in late summer, given the fact that we have eight times the amount of vaccine that the United Kingdom will need? Is a list being compiled of needy countries where the United Kingdom can help people with vaccination?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. While I am so proud of the work that we have done in this United Kingdom to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to buy vaccines from around the world that are safe and effective, so that we are able to vaccinate everybody here at home, I am also cognisant of the fact that vaccination around the world will be necessary. I was very pleased to see that COVAX started vaccinating in Ghana last week. It currently looks as if we may have excess vaccines in the future, and we have clearly committed that we will make them available around the world.

We know for sure that we seek to vaccinate with two doses every adult in the UK. There may well be a need for a third vaccination over the autumn against variants, and there is currently a clinical trial considering the vaccination of under-18s. So the exact number of vaccines that we will need for the UK population is not yet known, but we are keen to ensure that we then go on to support, with vaccines and with the money that we have already pledged, the vaccination of the most underdeveloped parts of the world.

Covid-19

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I make the case this evening for the increased use of lateral flow tests. Some misgivings have already been expressed that they are inaccurate. Perhaps in the early days, and with improper use, they may well have been, but any process administered inappropriately and badly gives poor results. The fact is that the technology has moved on and people are better trained in their use; indeed, in recent months we have seen that they have improved. I urge the wider use of the tests to help inspire confidence and to help us unlock the lockdown. Their use should be encouraged by the hospitality sector, airlines, factories, retail and sport. They provide an immediate, effective and quick result that deems a person good to go, or not, as the case may be. Let us roll this out to help open our country, which is unfortunately locked down.

Secondly, I want to address the problem of our country now living in a state of fear and, in many instances, ignoring fact. Covid has made our country fearful and suspicious. We have a daily diet of bad news. We have a generation now being encouraged to fret and worry. We have a duty to move our country beyond fear and to get it on to a message of hope. My catechism taught me that our chief end in life is to glorify God and to enjoy life in him forever. We are here to enjoy life, not to fear it, or to lock ourselves away from living it to its absolute fullest. Every effort to suppress fear must be made. However, the agenda of some is, unfortunately, about promoting fear and suspicion.

I wish also to call this evening for the unlocking of grassroots amateur football. Young males, in particular, are being locked away from practising positive, healthy wellbeing and interaction. Positive physical activity outside ought not to be stopped among young people who can be well supervised and managed. Tomorrow, a number of MPs will deliver to the Prime Minister a letter calling for the unlocking of youth amateur football, and I will be one of the signatories to that letter. I will leave in the Library this evening a letter from five senior clinicians in Northern Ireland, who wrote to me criticising the modelling on the R number. They show facts about the false hope on closing down personal services, hotels, hospitality and retail—actions that all have a moderate impact on driving down the R number. Keeping our country in lockdown is only suppressing, not stopping, this virus, and it is not the answer to the problem. Sir Van Morrison recently wrote and sang:

“We are not in this together.”

Some are being more harshly locked down than others. This House should fix that.

Covid-19 Vaccination Roll-out

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will apologise at this point, because I am listed as No. 11 in the main Chamber afterwards and I want to get to the Global UK debate—not the Global Britain debate, because I live in the UK; but that is a separate point. As we say at home, it would starve you in here. It is so cold that I think Pfizer could use this room to keep its vaccine at the proper temperature for us all.

It is an honour to follow my colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who quite rightly said that he has been disappointed so far with 2021. I have finished my 10-day free trial and I want a refund on the rest of 2021. Look, it is absolutely, entirely a matter of free will whether someone takes a vaccine if and when it becomes available. I am delighted that people are being given so much encouragement to take the vaccine. Of course, that has to be mixed with support for testing people and making sure that the right people get the vaccine as quickly as possible. It is absolutely right and proper that those most at risk are at the head of the queue.

I welcome the fact that today the Northern Ireland Executive have prioritised domiciliary care staff receiving the vaccine in Northern Ireland. That started this afternoon. Quite frankly, there is a hierarchy of frontline workers. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) was right to point out that educationalists should be at the top of that list, because of their reach across the entire community, whether they are early years workers or schoolteachers, or they manage kids with special needs in schools and institutions that have not been closed down as a result of covid. It is important that those frontline workers do not feel that they are second or third in the queue, and that society recognises their key and important role. It is disappointing to read that in some hospitals, more management staff have received the vaccine than nursing staff. That is abhorrent and wrong, and that balance has to be addressed. It is important that our frontline workers—our nursing staff—get it.

I strongly believe that schoolteachers are on the frontline. If we want schools to open again quickly, we have to start with early years and go right the way through to make sure that children can get back to school for the sake of their mental health, of opening up our society again and, of course, of promoting the welfare of our young people.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Gentleman brought up mental health, which is really important. I am greatly concerned about my 16-year-old studying for his A-levels. He has just started college with a new group of friends, but he does not have the opportunity to socialise and have the life experiences that we experienced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of utmost importance to get children and students back into school and education as soon as possible?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member has knocked it out of the park; she is absolutely right. It is key that we get our kids back in there so that they can socialise and work together again, and be the engine room of our society for the future. That will only happen when we get them back to school and facilitate that.

I received an email today from Ben Sidor, a student at Queen’s University Belfast. It is not just at the school level, but at the university level that people are being denied the positive interactions with their friends and peers that will allow them to become the men and women of tomorrow that society will look up to generation after generation. We must encourage that.

The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned the use of other organisations, which is important. Community pharmacies are key to the roll-out of the vaccine. Frankly, community pharmacists in my constituency have saved the NHS in the last couple of years. They are undervalued and underrated, yet they play a key role. Getting pharmacists on to the frontline to help with the roll-out is critical.

I also welcome the call to use the skills of our military. The Army is brilliant at logistical planning. We should use its skill to roll out the plan and to make sure that it is quick, efficient and agile, and that it responds to the needs of the community on the ground. There is no reason why our Army could not be used for that positive work. We are quite happy to send it to Sierra Leone to roll out vaccination projects there, so why can we not do that in our own nation and use its logistical planning skills?

I fear that there will be a shortage that will have an impact on certain parts of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland protocol already means that PPE is waiting at Stranraer and cannot get into Northern Ireland because of tax inspectors. Can you imagine, Sir David, if the same happened with vaccinations—if they were ready for Northern Ireland, but could not get there because of the protocol? That needs to be addressed urgently, and I raised the point personally with the Chancellor today.

I leave hon. Members with those thoughts. I welcome the debate, which is very important. I hope that those who wish, of their free will, to have the vaccination have that facilitated urgently.

Public Health

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I have consistently voted against these restrictions because I will not be dragged behind the banner wavers into this cul-de-sac we are being marched into. At the beginning of tonight’s debate, the Health Secretary said that he has “certain knowledge that we have a way out”. Oh, if that were so, I would follow him gladly, but I do not actually believe that he does have certainty that can be relied on in terms of this virus. Will this virus mutate into something worse? Who knows? Will the current vaccines work on mutated strains? Who knows? Can the virus be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers? Who knows? How effective will the current vaccines be? Who knows? What are we left with? Well, we are certainly not left with certainty about the way out of the lockdown.

I have now lost count of the number of lockdowns I have been asked to support by this Government. The problem for the Government is this: when this lockdown drags on through February and into March and it still has not worked, what are they going to do for their encore? What is next?

I fear that this is a massive mixed message. On the one hand, we have the wonderful news being declared that we have a vaccine—indeed, we have two vaccines. And then, instead of committing to rolling that vaccine out in a very strict and fast way, we have a declaration that we need to go into lockdown. It is hardly a vote of confidence in the vaccine if, on the one hand, we are saying we have a vaccine, and, on the other hand, we are saying we need to have a lockdown. We need to offer the vaccine urgently and quickly to key workers, whether in the health service or the education sector. We need to give it to the vulnerable and the elderly, who are the target of this disease. We should also be using the Army to roll out this vaccine in a consistent way.

Finally, I am appalled at the way in which our health service has been managed throughout all of this. It receives vast resources, yet my heart goes out tonight to the 1,300 or so people in Northern Ireland who will not be diagnosed this year with cancer because they are too frightened to go to the hospital. There are also all the misdiagnoses of coronary heart disease and stroke disease because of the total absorption of the management in the health service with covid.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): we should have a national day of prayer, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Front Bench supported that. Let us put this rather embarrassing episode of unending lockdowns behind us, and get on with ensuring that the health of the nation comes first.

Baby Loss: Covid-19

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.

This is a very important debate on something that affects all our constituents in a very direct and personal way. Some 25% of all pregnancies in the United Kingdom end in miscarriage and 14 babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth every day in the United Kingdom. Each of us across this House, no matter what party we are from, no matter what region of the United Kingdom we are from, no matter what culture or class we are from, knows that we are here to be a voice for constituents and for those people who contact us.

I want to be a voice today for Donna. Donna emailed me this week and told me, “Ian, I want you to be in that debate today, and I want you to tell people about my story and I want you to insist that people understand just some of the pressures families and individuals and mums and women go under at these crucial times.” Donna and her husband had their second consecutive miscarriage in February of this year. In April, she found out that she was again pregnant.

Donna felt that she had to isolate, because obviously she had some health issues and she wanted to make sure that she was in as good a health position as possible for what was to be a hopeful, exciting time for her and her family. Because of covid, however, she was told that she could not have an early pregnancy reassurance scan. Those scans are critical not only in giving confidence and assurance to mum, but to check on the health of the unborn child.

Donna felt pain one day. She told her GP, and the pregnancy clinic then agreed to give her an early scan. Little did she know that she was going to see two heartbeats that day, because she was pregnant with twins, so it was very exciting. She had to attend that clinic on her own, and that was the only time she saw her unborn babies alive. She tells me that on the way home in the car, she could not contain her excitement to tell her husband, and he too was so excited. The two of them, in her own words, had “never been so happy in all of their lives.” Unfortunately, that was the only time she ever saw the heartbeats of her unborn children. It was a very stressful time thereafter. She had to go back after feeling more pain, and discovered a few weeks later that unfortunately both heartbeats had ceased and those babies were to be unborn.

Donna was given three options to expel this pregnancy: naturally, through medicine, or through surgery. Due to covid-19, the options narrowed, and she was told she would have to go for the natural expelling of the pregnancy. She had so looked forward to having these babies, but it was not to be the case. Two weeks later, she went to the hospital with the saved remains to have them tested. She tells me a week later, she got a phone call from the clinic to tell her that her “product”—an unfortunate term—was ready for collection, and that she should make arrangements to go to the mortuary. She did that. She arrived at the mortuary, and had to sign a release form as the mother, which was another pull to her heartstrings and emotions. The whole experience was beyond surreal, and made her feel very emotional.

Donna was referred to the recurrent pregnancy loss clinic. However, the waiting list is now nine months, as the consultant in Northern Ireland who deals with this unfortunately has to shield themselves. As of today, she is sitting in her eighth week of being pregnant again, and is waiting for her next scan. I think we can all understand just something of the emotion and pain that she is going through. On the one hand, the mixed feelings of increased excitement, and on the other hand, increased worry and stress. Covid-19 obviously puts pressures on the entirety of the health system, and we have heard over the last few weeks the problems relating to mental health, and the increase in mental health pressures.

None of us can put ourselves in the shoes of an individual unless we have actually been there ourselves. This is an opportunity to make sure these issues are voiced, that people hear about them, and that they start to understand that these needs are practical ones. We might see a woman walking down the street and we will not know the trauma, heartache or mental health pressures that she has gone through. We do not know what the other, related problems might be with her family or her partner. I hope this debate will serve as a very useful, powerful and positive platform and opportunity for our constituents to know that this House cares, that Parliament cares, that the Minister cares, and that the Department will try to do something about it by encouraging our health service to direct its resources towards vulnerable and needy constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for applying for the debate, and everyone who has made a significant contribution. They have all been personal and heartfelt. I have spoken numerous times on this issue.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. One issue that this debate helps to address is the impact on the expectant father, as well as the mother, which is sometimes forgotten. I know the impact it has from my own experience 18 years ago. Thankfully, men are now more willing to speak about these issues, which is a good thing, but we must dwell on ensuring that the services that are provided are all encompassing and address the needs of men, as well as the most important needs—those of the mother of the unborn child.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. I have made it my business to speak in every debate on this issue. I have looked at some recent facts. In 2018, each day in the UK there were 2,060 babies born alive, 515 babies were miscarried, 144 babies were born pre-term and eight babies were stillborn. The reason I stand here today is to pay tribute to the thousands of heartbroken mothers and fathers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, that emptiness cannot be explained unless it is experienced. I have not personally experienced it myself in my own family, but my mother did. I remember very well that my mother had five miscarriages. That was in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a totally different time. When someone had a miscarriage, people did not talk about it. They would say, “I’m sorry to hear of your loss, but you can always try again.” Two days later, they would be back at work. My sister had three miscarriages and one wee boy who is disabled. That loss is real for her. My private secretary, Naomi, who writes all my speeches and prepares my business for me—a very busy wee girl, by the way—had two miscarriages. I lived through that experience with her, not personally, but as an employer who understood what that heartache and pain was like.

Since the last debate on this issue, so many people contacted me—not because of me, because I am just nobody—to say, “Thank you for speaking up for us,” including people whose partner had carried their baby to full term knowing that baby was neither going to live or breathe beyond two hours. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth told the story in her introduction. That is a real story for some of my constituents. That is why I am here today.

I have two asks of the Minister, if I may. The Minister knows I am very fond of her. I look forward to her response, because I know she has a compassionate heart and understands what all hon. Members have said on behalf of their constituents and themselves.

More testing must be available on the NHS for those who lose two babies in a row rather than three, as is the case currently. I am very close to a young lady who lost two wee babies in a row. She went to her appointment at the Ulster Hospital—my local hospital in Northern Ireland—early pregnancy unit to confirm that all of the baby had come away. The midwife—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) referred to the midwives—compassionately advised her and her husband to look at private options when they talked about their despair. It was terrible that they had to go elsewhere to get that help, but they paid for the private consultation and private tests, and found that something as simple as taking an aspirin daily could possibly address the blood clotting issue that had caused the loss of her little loved ones. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we traumatise women by making them go through a third loss before they can get the help that they need. That is my number one request to the Minister and my Government.

I sincerely urge the Minister to take this back to Government and press the case for at least rudimentary tests to be carried out. I have been contacted by a nurse in my constituency begging me to address the lack of support under pregnancy during the coronavirus. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and others spoke of that. I want to read from her email:

“It was a terrifying, lonely experience made worse by the fact that when I attended the Ulster hospital on Monday morning to have the assessment and scan to confirm if I was indeed miscarrying, I had to do so alone while my husband waited in the car due to the policy of only admitting the patient to the appointment”.

My heart aches for that separation, of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and others spoke. It is a real trauma for those involved, including the nurse and the midwives, and those who have to advise because of the special times we live in.

I understand the difficult times, but the fact is that a woman needs the support of her partner and her partner must be allowed to give that support. The Prime Minister’s reply—he has been quite good with his replies—said that fast and efficient tests will be made available, but we want to see that in place right now. We need to allow support partners to have tests immediately to allow them to attend appointments with their expecting loved ones. Again, I look to the Minister to assure me and others that such people will be on the priority list for a fast test.

Miscarriage is so devastating to families. The effects are felt for years. I remember one of the first cases I heard as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland of a constituent who lost her baby in the ’60s. She told me that she was never allowed to talk about it and mourn. Sixty years later, she still thinks about that. It does not matter how long ago it was; it is still real every day in life.

We must do better for these families, and offer hope, testing and support in taking steps to allow their loved one to be with them every step of the journey. I simply do not want to have to read again of the devastation that my constituent described:

“As a result of this policy my husband learnt of the loss of our baby in the car park of the Ulster hospital, hardly a suitable or private place for a sensitive and emotional conversation. His role as parent was completely undermined and dismissed by this policy”.

To conclude, the journey is that of a family, and the family must be allowed to provide whatever support and love they can give in the face of a devastating loss. To those who have lost a baby I say, “The loss of your baby is important. Your pain is real and you have the right to grieve the loss of the future that you had planned together. It is my honest belief as a Christian and a man of faith that your wee one is safe in the arms of Jesus until you can be with them again.”

Covid-19

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 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.

This global pandemic calls on us all to make the best judgments that we can on behalf of our nation. This disease attacks us all because we are human, and it is only by coming together as humanity that we can solve it. It is a communitarian disease that passes from person to person among those who are closest to each other, and it is as a community that we must tackle it. The virus raises profound questions for each Member of this House, too, representing our constituencies as we do, to make the best judgments that we can in the face of uncertainty, immense challenge and with great weights on each side of the scales, in the best interests of the nation that we serve.

We have heard today from the Prime Minister of the grave steps on which the House will vote on Wednesday. We know of the real impact that those steps will have on so many lives and livelihoods. We know the hardships that would be faced and the jobs lost, and we cannot save them all, but the alternative of not acting would be so much worse.

When faced with such a deadly adversary, we cannot stand aside and let it spread unchecked through our communities when we know the devastation it would cause, not just to the NHS and not only in the mounting death toll, but I firmly believe the impact on our economy would be worse too. The devastation that the virus would wreak if unchecked would impact the NHS’s ability to treat covid and non-covid patients. For all those who need treatment in the NHS right now, the action we propose will help to ensure that the NHS has what it needs to give them the world-class care that we have all come to expect.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I applaud the congratulations that the Secretary of State has already extended to NHS workers. What message does he have for my constituent, Faye McDonnell, a student nurse? Will she be paid during this crisis? Will my other constituent, Kirsten Doran, a theatre nurse, be paid the increase in pay and fair pay that nurses are campaigning for?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course the NHS in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Administration there. I know of the issues around nurses’ pay, which has been the subject of much interest. I will not go into the individual details, but I recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes on behalf of his constituents. We in this House support the staff of the NHS across the UK—in all four nations in all four parts of the NHS.

Across the UK, however, the case is the same. For people who need NHS treatment now, whether it is for covid or any other condition, the best course of action is to suppress the virus. Partly because of that, I therefore believe that the only strategy a responsible Government can take is to suppress the virus and support the economy, education and the NHS as much as possible until science can come to our rescue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Today, my mother celebrated her 89th birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. She is well supported, like many octogenarians in Northern Ireland, in a social bubble where my sister looks after her extremely well, she has frequent visits from people who are socially distanced from her, great interaction with her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren and she enjoys the fullness of life. But her experience is very unlike that of millions of old-age pensioners across the whole of the United Kingdom. Tonight, 2.5 million pensioners are living in complete isolation and loneliness across many of our constituencies, and they have no one to turn to. Those pensioners are frightened to their wits’ end about some of the messaging that they see on their television screens. They probably believe the words of that elderly singer and songwriter from Belfast, Van Morrison, who has said that for some people:

“Optics are more important than ‘science’”.

Many of those elderly people who have a strong faith are now being told that they cannot go to their places of worship here in Great Britain. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that there should be a national day of prayer on which the community comes together and our great church buildings sound out praises and prayers to our Almighty God in a way that puts Him first in our nation for the first time in a long time.

Many people in our care homes do not know whether they will be entitled to a visit. I understand that the health service was looking at a pilot scheme to open up care homes to more visits, but many care home practitioners quite correctly tell me that it is because they have closed themselves to visits that the people living in those care homes have been saved from the ravages of coronavirus. We have to get a balance that also works for the practitioners in our care homes. In Northern Ireland, 80% of those who have succumbed to coronavirus deaths are octogenarians, so it is little wonder that those people live in fear. We have to start to address their concerns adequately and properly.

I said in an earlier intervention that we applaud our health workers. We have seen a lot of people out there clapping them, but many nurses tell me—I have to declare an interest: my daughter is a nurse—that they feel they are being slapped in the face, not clapped on the back, when we look at their pay cheque at the end of the month for the work that they have to do. Student nurses regularly ask me whether they will be paid through this period of crisis. We have to ensure that we really start to see some progress with regards to nurses’ pay.

Let us look at what is going to happen today. By the time the curtain comes down this evening, 600 people across the United Kingdom will have died of cancer, more than 500 will have died of heart disease and 20 people have taken their own life through the misery of suicide. They are practically forgotten in the panic of the coronavirus. The figures tell us something very different from what we are being told by some of the leading practitioners. Respiratory diseases killed 3.9 million people worldwide in 2017. In 2020, 1 million people have succumbed to coronavirus. We must start to address this issue properly and adequately.

Mental Health Support: Frontline Staff

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered mental health support for frontline staff.

It is an honour to move the motion with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, now that Westminster Hall is once again available for our purposes. In this unique time of pandemic, the mental health of frontline and key workers should be fully supported. I declare an interest as a former psychologist in the NHS for 20-plus years—I am showing my age—before I came to this House, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary health group and the all-party parliamentary group on psychology.

No one should underestimate the severity of the mental health crisis that engulfs us all as a direct result of the advent and ongoing havoc wreaked by covid-19 across the UK, and indeed worldwide. I thank the organisations that have been involved on the frontline, supporting mental health strategy and the delivery of services, including: the child mental health charter and, in particular, Helen Clark, a former Member of this House; the British Psychological Society; the British Medical Association; the Royal College of Psychiatrists; Mind; the Centre for Mental Health; and EveryDoctor—that is to name but a few. I thank all the other parliamentarians who have taken the time on a Thursday afternoon to speak on this vital issue.

On 5 October, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus of the World Health Organisation introduced the first global dataset on covid-19 access to mental health services. He said:

“COVID-19 has interrupted essential mental health services around the world just when they’re needed most.”

There were some devastating findings. Before the pandemic, countries were spending less than 2% of their national health budgets on mental health. More than 120 countries —93%—reported that mental health services had been stopped or disrupted during the pandemic, 72% said that mental health services to children and adolescents had been disrupted, and 75% had seen a disruption to mental health services in the workplace. Despite the fact that 89% of the countries surveyed said that mental health and psychosocial supports were included in their national coronavirus response plans, only a shocking 17% had full additional funding to cover the cost of those services. Together, those figures show that there is likely to be an international tsunami of mental health morbidity like no other seen in our time.

The Centre for Mental Health, a UK charity, estimates that in England alone up to 10 million people may need mental health support—including long-term support—for the foreseeable future as a result of covid-19, and that 1.5 million children may require support. Those numbers are a stark warning that the impact of the pandemic will have severe long-term repercussions for the mental health of the UK as a whole.

Those affected will need support for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health difficulties in the coming months and years. Of course, some groups are disproportionately affected, including those with disabilities, those from minority ethnic communities and those with pre-existing mental health conditions who have experienced increased morbidity during the pandemic. Responding to increased mental health needs must therefore be a priority when a recovery plan is drawn up for both NHS and social care sectors for the future of our public health and in fiscal planning across Governments.

On the impact on frontline staff, the national forecast for adults is that more than 200,000 NHS workers may need treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress and burnout. Although less data has been collected, it is likely that a similar pattern will affect those who work across social care settings such as nursing homes. Research is badly needed. Those staff must not be excluded from or let down by the data collection and resourcing that is required. I would be grateful if the Minister looked specifically at the resourcing of data on the psychological impact of covid-19 in the community, nursing and social care sectors.

The International Council of Nurses reminds us that the effects of covid-19 on the mental health of nurses and the wider health social care workforce is a ticking time bomb. Every Thursday, across the UK, we were glad to show our support for key workers on the frontline, who risk themselves daily as they confront the pandemic on our behalf, but we owe them much more than weekly applause, and Governments across the UK owe them that duty of care.

Data from previous pandemics analysed by the British Medical Journal shows that post pandemic, healthcare workers are at high risk of both psychological illnesses and physical outcomes. For frontline staff, decisions made during the pandemic have regularly determined who to prioritise for care, but they have also felt a lack of control, especially when patients are care home residents who are dying and no treatment has been available for them. Emotionally and physically, having to be there day in, day out for patients as well as their families, who often could not visit relatives in their time of need, has been unduly toiling. That has come alongside the use of personal protective equipment for long periods; times when PPE has not been provided to the extent that it should have been; and long periods of excess working hours, stress and exhaustion.

A study by Kisley and colleagues has identified risk factors for psychological distress for staff in the time of covid-19. Personal care and socioeconomic stressors included personal childcare needs, having an infected family member at one point during the pandemic, and having a lower household income, with fewer choices in how to cope. Trauma is triggered when trusted bodies act in a way that can harm their safety at work, such as the failure to obtain correct or sufficient PPE, or by the breakdown or absence of testing and systems. The study also identified enforced redeployment to care for covid-19 patients, a failure to screen and triage healthcare workers for mental health needs prior to the pandemic, and a reliance on crisis intervention when symptoms develop.

Prior to the pandemic, the British Medical Association set out in a 2019 NHS staff survey that 40.3% of healthcare staff reported feeling unwell due to work-related stress. With the onset of covid-19, the workload for healthcare workers has increased radically. Four in 10 psychiatrists have reported an increase in people requiring emergency healthcare, including new patients, in the aftermath of lockdown. NHS and social care jobs obviously involve exposure to a huge range of potential stressors, including competing demands, interpersonal conflict, complex and life-changing decision making, moral injury, shift work and long hours. Added to that in the past six months is the pausing of the working time directive, the limited scope for time off or holiday periods, the increasing morbidity of patients, and losing colleagues. As someone who has worked in the NHS for many years, I have to say that the loss of colleagues is a terrible shock, and not something that people expect in their day-to-day working lives. That is something that frontline staff have had to cope with in addition to their care roles.

People join the caring professions to make a difference and make others better, but coronavirus has created an overwhelming feeling of helplessness in the midst of this trauma. It should be noted that previous coping strategies that those on the frontline utilised may play out differently if they have to cope with a second or third wave. The adrenaline with which they coped in those vital months so that they could be there to support those in need may be replaced by the dread of going through it all again and the fear of being retraumatised.

I have referred to some of the facts and figures impacting the mental health of care workers, but here are some voices from the frontline, expressed in letters sent to The Guardian and the nationwide EveryDoctor organisation, which has been in touch. One said: “The mental health exhaustion that comes from changing everything about the way you work on a weekly or sometimes daily basis for months is immense. All the while, you can see a light at the end of the tunnel, but then you are bracing yourself for the next disaster: a second wave or winter crisis, alongside mass staff absence.”

Another said: “There is the effect of not only seeing patients die, but losing colleagues. Everyone is struggling with this pandemic, but doctors are responsible for the decision making clinically. We can see that this is not going away. There is no respite in sight.”

Another said:

“I am employed on mental health wards as a support worker, helping people recover from acute problems… Covid-19 has not only affected general hospitals but has also had a huge impact on mental health facilities, which are more often run by a skeleton staff… On top of this we are also dealing with mental health patients infected with Covid-19… As we are not considered to be on the frontline, we are not equipped with proper personal protective equipment. We get a basic face mask, gloves and a flimsy apron.”

It should not be forgotten that school staff are also on the frontline, as they have to deal with the effects of the pandemic on children in their care. The mental health issues incurred by lockdown in the children they teach everyday are present upon return to schools. Anxiety and stress among a large group of pupils, alongside the experience of bereavement and a lack of community adolescent mental health services for those with acute problems, has been a feature of the recent past. That is alongside reduced assessment and diagnosis possibilities, due to staff having to change their working patterns, often from face-to-face to virtual sessions, after a period during which sessions were not offered.

Innovation will be key in ensuring that we can address the needs not only in the population but among the frontline staff who desperately need support. Using technology and ensuring that there is the capacity and technical knowledge to support the transition to other methods of care will be fundamental. Meeting the mental health needs that arise from coronavirus is a huge challenge, but it is not optional. Just as responding to the threat of the virus itself has tested our resources and resilience, so too will addressing the psychological and emotional consequences.

I am extremely grateful to the British Psychological Society, which has provided specialist guidance. I know that it has also been working with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and with the Minister’s office. It wants to see the planning of psychological support and resourcing of the psychological workforce to meet demands in the NHS and care homes and also in schools and the community. It also wants to see increased access to an in-house employee wellbeing service, which it believes will be critical, particularly if unemployment issues face the population in the coming months. It wants to see the employment of psychologists to focus specifically on staff. It tells me that it is not feasible, in the long term, to ask psychologists to work with patients in their work time and then to work with NHS staff in their spare time to meet psychological needs. The society would like to see more use of psychologists not just in supporting patients, but in a strategy to support staff over the long term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) will be covering in depth the work of the Scottish Government in relation to mental health strategies during the pandemic, so I will focus on the issues that have been raised with me in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary health group and the all-party parliamentary group on psychology.

These are some of the questions that I have been asked to raise with the Minister. What steps is the Department of Health and Social Care taking to model and plan for demand for mental health support as a result of coronavirus and the consequent impact on the economy and employment? What additional funding will be made available to mental health providers to ensure that services are covid-19 safe and that they can meet increased demand for support and deliver on existing pledges in the NHS long-term plan for mental health? What resources will be made available for local initiatives that provide early mental health support in our communities, especially for those people who have been bereaved? What proportion of schoolchildren will benefit from the wellbeing for education return funding? How will children’s mental health be supported moving forward?

What resources will be made available to support health and care staff in the NHS, social care and voluntary sectors who are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, high levels of psychological distress or burnout? What specialist support will be made available? What resources will be made available to ensure that research and funding are provided for those working in social care settings so that we adequately address their mental health needs alongside the NHS staff population?

What plans are being put in place to protect NHS staff from a potential onslaught of claims against them because of the pressures that they have worked under during the pandemic? That may give rise to a number of negligence suits in the future. That issue has particularly been raised by the Medical Defence Union, which is concerned that staff have often been placed on the frontline with a lack of resources and with a lack of support medically or clinically themselves.

Now is the time when I feel that I and other hon. Members should be responding in the main Chamber to a detailed statement from the Government about their proposals for mental health directly arising from the devastating impact and ongoing effect of covid-19. Such a statement could include ways in which the Government propose to protect and sustain the mental health and wellbeing of key workers and that will be distinctly and separately resourced, rather than relying on any money from pots designed for other purposes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply today. I hope, on behalf of the key workers for whom I have been given the privilege to speak, that she will tell us that the Government have set a date for the announcement of a properly and realistically resourced mental health strategy that will be both integral and central to the overall covid-19 recovery plan.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I thought I was going to be calling Jim Shannon to speak today, but he is not here, as we know, so I call Owen Thompson.