Skin Conditions and Mental Health

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to talk about mental health support for those with skin conditions, which is something that is often forgotten about by health providers across the UK and beyond. That is surprising, because 60% of British people currently suffer or have suffered from skin conditions at some point in their life. Those figures are comparable with cancer—it is a much bigger problem than we recognise. Some 98% of skin disease patients currently report that their condition affects their emotional and psychological wellbeing, yet only 18% have received any form of psychological support. That is a dichotomy that I want to explore very briefly—notwithstanding my sore voice, for which I am very sorry.

A key reason why support for these conditions is so important is that recent studies have proven that there has been an increase in psychological distress, and in the last two years in particular. That applies in particular to adults over 18 and children aged between six and 16. For over-18-year-olds, there has been an increase of distress from 20.8% in 2019 to 24.4% in March 2021. That in my view is a reflection of the pandemic, from which we have all suffered.

A study of adults over 18 also found that 26.1% of respondents reported self-harm thoughts at least once between March 2020 and May 2021. That is a hidden danger that we must all be aware of. It is even worse for those who are a bit younger. Among children aged six to 16, 39.2% have experienced some kind of deterioration in mental health since 2017—no doubt as a result of schools being closed and the isolation we all suffered from during the pandemic. For me, this debate is about the hidden dangers of the pandemic and the mental health cost on individuals.

That is made worse as young people emerge from the pandemic and their hibernation. How do they look? How do they feel? How low or high is their confidence? What about not having been in the sun for the last couple of years for those living in high-rise blocks in London and inner cities? What about skin conditions, such as acne? What about not going to school at that key age as a teenager? What about the lack of confidence that comes from having a skin condition? I want to raise these questions today. We can easily acknowledge the problem, but the solution is much more difficult.

Having discussed mental health, I want to move on to dermatology. The number of eczema sufferers in the UK has been steadily rising for the last 10 years. It stands currently at 1.3 million people. Interestingly, eczema is diagnosed much earlier. In around 90% of cases, it is children below the age of five. Psoriasis is much more of a problem for people that are slightly older. The prevalence of psoriasis in the UK today is a similar figure, at about 1 million to 1.3 million people. I am very familiar with it myself. Psoriasis is a problem that can affect how people look, and it is just one of many skin conditions, as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is part of the whole panoply of skin issues that affect people so badly.

So what can we do? I want to raise three key points with the Minister. We need to improve the support for all those with skin conditions. We need to focus on the link between dermatology and mental health. First, I want to call on the Government to review their spending on dermatology to enable clinics to provide specialist mental health support for children and young people who suffer from skin problems. As we heard earlier, that may break the link between skin issues and mental health, which people are increasingly suffering from.

Secondly, we should ensure that, whenever possible, face-to-face appointments are available to those who need them. That is really important. It is about human contact and touch. A Zoom call with a doctor is fine, if people can get an appointment, but it does not recognise the problem. The doctor cannot see it nor feel it. That, for me, is very important.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech. I, too, pay tribute the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). This is such an important issue. I have been contacted by a constituent of mine called Margaret who is a lifelong sufferer of psoriasis. To judge from his opening speech, I think that much of what she said in her email to me would be very familiar to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough. Does the hon. Member for Bracknell agree with me about the importance of first contact with the doctor and how important it is that sufferers of all kinds of skin conditions can feel confident about reaching out to their doctor? As the hon. Gentleman says, face-to-face contact is so important. I also want to emphasise to anyone, anywhere, who might be suffering from a skin condition that help is available and they should not hesitate to seek it.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I could not agree more. The simple answer is that doctors cannot see anything on a Zoom call. Also, people need to be able to see a doctor to get a prescription. If someone has a skin condition, they cannot just go to the chemist to get a prescription. They have to get an appointment first in order to get the prescription, and that is where face-to-face appointments come into it.

My third point is that we need to increase the range of psychological support for all those who need it. That is part of the panoply of health support that we need. A 2014 study showed that 94% of the patients who had completed psychodermatology treatment reported reduced stress, 92% reported increased confidence, and 90% reported that their skin condition was better understood. Wow. Those figures are amazing, but if someone asks for that treatment at this point in time, it takes up to a year for a referral, which is worrying.

I want to commend the excellent services locally in my constituency. The Frimley integrated care system is one of the best in the country, if not the best. The treatment that I have had personally has been pretty good, notwithstanding the delay that we are all suffering form. Lastly, I ask the Minister to reinvest accordingly in this very important area so that young people and adults are not suffering.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

This debate can continue until 6.07 pm. However, the House will know that there is very probably a vote at 6 pm. Coming back for five minutes seems odd, so it would be helpful if we can conclude by 6 pm. We have three further Back-Bench speeches and 15 minutes to conclude them in, so four or five minutes each will be helpful.

Covid-19 Update

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

All Members know what the guidance is, and it is a decision for them.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Like many other Members, I welcome today’s statement, and I agree that further measures and restrictions would only be a necessary evil. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the many millions of people and businesses throughout the UK who are clawing back jobs, livelihoods and freedoms after a difficult two years, and does he agree that these further restrictions should only be an absolute last resort?

[Sajid Javid]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We all know from our experience of the pandemic thus far that while many of the restrictions may well be necessary to fight covid, they have other impacts, especially on the economy, on people’s life chances and on children’s education and social lives. I am very much aware of the impact that they have had on non-covid outcomes, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

GP Appointment Availability

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing the debate. I listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)—I am sure he was looking over my shoulder when I wrote mine, because some of the themes are quite similar.

I find myself in the curious situation of raising the issue of NHS services in east Berkshire. Why is that curious? Because we are pretty well served, actually. The NHS is pretty good locally. We have three fantastic hospitals on the doorstep. The Frimley ICS is one of the best-performing care systems in the country and recently had a reprieve from the new Health Secretary, who had looked at breaking it up. We are in a pretty good place, and I do not tend to get letters from constituents about the healthcare that they receive, which is very good. In this case, however, I have been receiving letters, and I am quite concerned about it.

What is the perception, and what are people saying to me? Under the current policy, GP practices must now ensure that they offer face-to-face appointments. Only 57% of appointments across the UK are currently face to face, versus 79% before the pandemic, so there is an issue. There is also a perception that it is difficult to get through to practices on the phone, and that there is low availability of appointments and a lack of face-to-face care. Constituents are never wrong, my constituents are not wrong, and if they are writing to me repeatedly about these issues, clearly it is incumbent upon me as their MP to raise them.

What is the good news? Nationally, the narrative is actually very positive. If we look at the current statistics from the Care Quality Commission, the scores on GP access are the highest they have ever been, with a 67% satisfaction rate now, compared with 63% last year. Same-day appointments have gone up. People are satisfied with what they are getting from their GP, with an 88.7% satisfaction rating of “good” or “very good”. As of August 2021, 23.9 million GP appointments were offered and recorded, compared with 23.4 million two years ago, so things are getting better. Things are going up. That is in addition to the 1.5 million covid-19 vaccination appointments delivered in August 2021 by GP surgeries. The service, statistically, is improving. It is good news.

However, the data appears to contrast with what I am hearing locally. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said earlier about how there could be a postcode lottery, or it could be related to the service provider at individual constituency surgeries. Demand is clearly outstripping supply, so Houston, we’ve got a problem.

As an example, one constituent spent 45 minutes on the phone to a particular surgery, tried 159 times to get through and was then offered a telephone consultation for a lump on her neck, which is not great. Constituents have dialled 111 and been advised to contact their GP, then after being unable to get through, they phone 111. We have had multiple complaints from certain constituents in a certain part of my constituency—it would not be fair for me to say where—informing me that the practice has 20,000 patients and only two doctors. The figures do not work. Telephone triage is being used instead of an immediate face-to-face. For flu vaccinations, one particular group practice is advising constituents to travel to the central hub in Bracknell, which causes issues for those less able to get there. We have a capacity problem.

However, it is unacceptable that staff are working under challenging circumstances and facing levels of abuse not previously seen. GPs and staff are working harder than ever before. Retention and staff satisfaction are an issue. Therefore, MPs like me must do more to help to redress that balance, and to balance the narrative. By the same token, GP surgeries also need to take the inquiries that we raise with them more seriously. The GP is not the enemy, and nor is the MP.

My general advice to GP surgeries is this: I think that there are things we can do. We need more staff. Let us do more to recruit staff, particularly receptionist and telephone staff. We need to reassure patients a bit more; they want some TLC after the pandemic, and it is right that they get it. We need to sort out the phone lines. We need to improve electronic referral systems. In Bracknell, we have the new primary care network phone system, whereby calls that cannot be answered by a particular surgery will be rerouted to another, which is quite exciting. We also need communication between surgeries and their patients: tell the constituents what is going on and explain to them why their calls are going unanswered. MPs need to visit surgeries, as I am next week. Basically, let us improve customer service.

I have three points to conclude with. First, care providers in East Berkshire and across the country are working miracles, but are accountable to their customers. I would urge GP surgeries to think about what their customers are saying to them, and to do what they can to reassure them. My second point is addressed to the Minister. The new IPC guidance is forthcoming. When will it be published, and when will GP surgeries get more guidance on what it means? Lastly, I urge everyone listening to this to watch the language being used. We are all in the same space and working hard; doctors and staff are working really hard. Let us please tone it down. All of us are part of the problem, but we are also all part of the solution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We now come to Front-Bench speeches. I would like to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

James Sunderland Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I will admit to being in two minds about speaking in this important debate. As a biological male, I cannot, of course, get pregnant. What do I know, really? Can I feel it? Do I have a right to be here? Do my experiences carry any legitimacy against the amazing stories that we have heard today? Of course the answer is yes, but there is a conflict. This is difficult territory for all of us, but not least for men. We need to destigmatise this conundrum. The fact that something is difficult does not mean that we should not do it or talk about it, so I really hope that I hold it together for the next five minutes or so.

For me, baby loss is about many things. It is about bereavement at the loss of any child, big or small. It is about the devastation that is left behind. It is about the hopes that are dashed, and the misery. It is about love. It is about the agony of miscarriage, however that child is conceived. It is about those trying for children—those who desperately want children. And it is about those going through in vitro fertilisation or intrauterine insemination, with the physical and emotional nightmare that that brings; people mortgage their house and their hopes, take out loans and bankrupt themselves, against the mirage of science. It is great when it works, but the agony of infertility is very real for so many people. This debate is also about those who might never have children and those who do not have children.

Back in April 2018, my young niece succumbed to a very serious illness. It was not long before her second birthday, and she would have been five today. I have not spoken about that publicly, and I do not really want to do so now, but I can tell the House that bereavement at the loss of a child is devastating, and I was not the parent. Grief works in so many ways; it is so difficult. Aside from the inherent loss of a beautiful and innocent child, it is about what is left behind. It is about birthdays, Christmases, the friends and boyfriends that never materialise, grandchildren and children, and it is also about the parents who grieve—and it lasts forever. Politically, this is actually very easy to deal with: we need to throw the kitchen sink at it. I note that the Minister is in her place. Money should be no object when it comes to this kind of thing.

My niece died just across the river in the fantastic Evelina Hospital. It is a brilliant facility, and I commend the staff who work there. What an amazing machine. It is so state of the art that it looks like a spaceship, and the people are just brilliant. I thank them and all the staff across the country doing that very difficult job. However, we must invest in more of these facilities. We have to give all our children the best possible care. It is only money, at the end of the day. There can be no greater prize than bringing a child into the world, or saving a life, or prolonging life, so let us give all our children the best possible chance.

We need to talk about this issue, as we are now, however difficult that might be. Of course, baby loss is also about losing a baby through miscarriage. These are not just embryos; they are people. They are lives. They are the embodiment of hopes and dreams for so many people. They are actually little versions of ourselves. Yes, nature can have a way of taking its own decisions, and that is fine, but miscarriage is devastating for all parents, grandparents, families and so many people who have direct involvement in it. I can only imagine the horror. My heart goes out in particular to women who have to give birth to a baby that once had a heartbeat. I cannot imagine how difficult that must be. We need to empathise and sympathise and just be there, to love and to feel for them.

For women who cannot get pregnant and who do not get pregnant, it is about the pain, the loss, the endless cycle of hope each month, and the devastation as her period starts all over again. This is tricky, tricky stuff. It is also about the sister who churns out children like rounds from a machine gun with complete impunity—with no effort at all. Perhaps even worse, it is about the sanctimonious friend or sister-in-law who can do the same. It is about the doubt and the worry. It is about the compounded misery, month on month. Again, our hearts must go out to the people who are so badly affected. It is about the hours crouched over toilets in cubicles, with negative pregnancy tests, bereft at yet again coming on. The list goes on, and it is real and it is happening today in this country to so many of us.

It is also about the agony of putting on a brave face afterwards. It is about going back into the world—going back into the office—as if nothing has happened. It is tough stuff. Then there are the tests, the invasion, the prodding, the poking and the examinations for those who want to find out why they cannot conceive—being on a slab, feeling like a total failure.

And what about men? Well, here we go. I was that man in the day, doing unnatural things in cubicles in clinics across London. I was that man carrying precious cargo on the tube in odd-shaped containers. I could deal with the alcohol bans for three months at a time, although that was difficult, but the loss of caffeine was really tough.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for having the courage to tell his story. I, too, have been through the experience of IVF. Does he agree that one of the worst things about going through that battle of fertility is people innocently asking, “When are you and your partner going to start a family? When are you going to have children? You don’t want to leave it too late.” A risk in all this is the lack of awareness that infertility is very common.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. You often do not want to say anything, but you feel as though you should. You ask why you have not got children, and why others are having children and you are not. There is the expectation of one’s grandparents. It is a difficult business.

On one occasion, I was eating a piece of white toast in the kitchen and this mad, deranged woman grabbed it from me and said, “Don’t.” On another occasion, I was on exercises with my regiment, with the whole unit on parade—I was there with the brigadier on a big visit—and my phone rang. It was my wife, and she said, “Come home, honey; I’m ovulating.” Those words would put the fear of God into any man. But the worst thing of all is the Brazil nuts, chopped up with breakfast—absolutely horrible things. To this day, I have post-traumatic stress disorder from that.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his absolute and utter honesty. Having gone through these kinds of experiences, I know the desperation of wanting to have children and then the absolute terror, as a women and a partner, when you are going through pregnancy, about whether you are going to be able to hear a heartbeat, feel that movement and know that everything is all right. Does he agree that the best thing we can do is to talk about this issue openly—I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for bringing it to the House—because that is the way we will all get through it together?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend from Grimsby. I could not agree more. There is not much I can really add to that; she is absolutely right. From personal experience, seeing the heartbeat on the screen is worth all the effort and I would commend everyone just to keep going because dreams do come true.

Very briefly, as time is marching on, for couples going through IVF, please have respect for what they are doing. They are mortgaging themselves. It is about the money. It is about the anxiety—endless cycles in many cases. It is also about the heavy drugs, the mood swings, the overestimation of the ovaries and the injections in the stomach. It is pretty grim. So feel. Please support and be there for your friends and family who are going through it. There is devastation when it goes wrong and it does go wrong. Spare a thought for the heartache, for the hopes, the preparations, the fears and the tests. It rests, ultimately, on a drop of urine. It is absolutely brutal.

Having debated the horrible reality of baby loss today, what can we do? I am going to rattle through this very quickly. We need to support our loved ones, as I have said. As men or partners, we need to hug, to hold, to reassure and to listen.

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I thank all hon. Members for their courageous speeches. The point my hon. Friend is raising, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) is raising, is that this does not just affect women. We are not just the ones who go through the grief, bereavement and pain. Men do too and we need to talk more about that. Both men and women suffer bereavement through baby loss.

[James Sunderland]

Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend. This is about two people. It takes two to tango. People go through this collectively as a couple, but also individually. We should recognise the fact that it is difficult for both parties, whoever they might be.

As I said earlier, we need to invest in hospitals an awful lot more: in better baby units, better midwives and consultants who read their notes. We need to make sure that we take some risks politically on this issue and spend more money. As I said, it is only money. Employers, please get a grip. If you have a woman in your employ going through IVF, please just empathise and sympathise. Give her some space.

Before I finish, I want to stick my neck out on a couple of very personal issues—please forgive me. For those who want to have children, go for it is my advice. Stay strong and keep going. My humble advice is not to leave it too late: you cannot turn the clock back and careers are, ultimately, not that important. For those considering IVF, just go for it. It does work. It is successful and it is getting better all the time. For those who might need extra support, I commend the organisation Foresight, otherwise known as the Association for the Promotion of Preconceptual Care, which is absolutely fantastic. Finally, for those for whom it does not work and suffer the loss of never conceiving, we can never do enough for you. In this place, as politicians, we will keep focusing on this very important issue. Please keep lobbying us, too. These are life and death issues that are ultimately more important than anything else.

Lastly, and most importantly of all, please do spare a thought for those poor men eating Brazil nuts for breakfast.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

What evidence he plans to use to inform the Government’s decision on whether to proceed with step 4 of the covid-19 road map on 19 July 2021.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

What evidence he plans to use to inform the Government’s decision on whether to proceed with step 4 of the covid-19 road map on 19 July 2021.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have committed to taking a cautious approach to easing restrictions, guided by the data and not by dates. As I set out in my statement to Parliament yesterday, the decision to lift the remaining measures on 19 July and proceed to step 4 is based on an assessment of the four tests that were set out in the road map.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

First, I am pleased that my hon. Friend agrees with the decision we have made to proceed with step 4. It sounds like he agrees with the central decision to move from a system of regulation to one of guidance. As he knows, the pandemic is not over, so we are rightly moving forward in a measured way. I am pleased that he agrees with the approach.

[James Sunderland]

I also welcome yesterday’s step 4 announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Department should embrace a bit more risk by working with the Department for Transport to open up the international travel sector fully? Will he also ensure that GPs return to fully physical appointments and that we open up the full range of dental services?

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, now that we have begun the process of opening up, more work is being done between my Department and the Department for Transport on international travel. The announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary last week will certainly help and be welcomed by the sector and travellers. On GP access, now that we have started to open up, working together with GPs we can see better direct access, and especially face-to-face access.

NHS Integrated Care System Boundaries

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend says that is outrageous.

A firm of organisational consultants, Tricordant, was instructed by NHS England and NHS Improvement East of England to host roundtables in recent months with all the stakeholders in and around the NHS in the east of England. For some reason, it was told to exclude the MPs. Tricordant has produced several drafts of its report, which have been shared among existing ICS leaderships, NHS providers and tier 1 local authorities, but not with MPs. A few of us were eventually briefed by NHS England at the Minister’s behest, but I am mystified as to why we were not positively engaged at the outset.

The White Paper produced in February 2020—incidentally, just as we perhaps should have been anticipating the pandemic, instead of planning an upheaval of the NHS—talks about this coterminosity of boundaries, but it also has a whole section on the primacy of place. I will explain this, but those two objectives are fundamentally incompatible. The consultation exercise then appears to have been driven by that dogmatic insistence on coterminosity, and has been further confused by a lack of clarity about the problem that actually needs to be solved.

In Essex and Suffolk, areas larger than single counties were ruled out so Ministers will be presented only with a choice between the boundaries as they are and two county ICS areas—one for Essex and one for Suffolk. Discussions concerning the future of the Suffolk and North East Essex ICS have been strongly weighted towards the county councillors and their officers. Not all relevant NHS stakeholders have been consulted, which is why NHS Providers, which represents NHS leaders across the country, has spoken out on their behalf. Individual NHS leaders are understandably reluctant to criticise proposals in public, but they are known to be against the change, including the leaderships of the acute trusts across the east of England.

I understand why the county councils want this change, and I completely respect their ambition. Essex has made clear to me its frustration at making time for meetings with three different ICSs. I can also see that the new boundaries are superficially attractive, because they align NHS commissioning with the boundaries for the health and wellbeing board and other statutory public services, such as the Essex police and the local resilience forum. Essex County Council acknowledges the extremely successful place-based working implemented by Suffolk and North East Essex ICS, which incidentally has been complimented by the Care Quality Commission, the King’s Fund and the National Audit Office.

The new legislation is intended to extend place-based working to all areas. None the less, the Tricordant report would be misleading if it did not express the clear preference of NHS leaders in Essex to retain the existing ICS boundaries, primarily in recognition of the long history of operating as a single health economy, the significant flow of patients across the county border, the strength of existing relationships in the system, and the progress that has been made locally in integrating health and care services.

There are practical difficulties with the changes for Harwich and North Essex, which are replicated in other parts of England. Enablers of effective place-based working—the leadership, the philosophy and having all the partners sitting around one table—are essential to build effectiveness. A place—I use that term advisedly—that has thrived as part of one system will not necessarily thrive as part of another. Superb progress has been made in north-east Essex in recent years and, more recently, in mid and south Essex. These systems are now working not just because commissioning reflects what is called place but because people have grown into their roles and developed relationships of trust across different organisations. All that will be discarded by the wholesale changes to NHS commissioning by imposing coterminosity.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because Members of Parliament in Nottinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Suffolk, Essex and beyond have not been adequately consulted on these proposals, we should pause any decision with a view to looking more objectively at what is on the table?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I might say later.

The foundation trust for the Ipswich and Colchester hospitals will have two different commissioners, or Suffolk will have to take over the commissioning role for Colchester Hospital, leaving north-east Essex GPs, mental health services and so on with a different commissioning authority from that of the local hospital. NHS England told the MPs:

“We still do not know how the funds will flow”.

We certainly will not have all the partners sitting around a single table. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) will be reabsorbed into Suffolk, even though it is half of the wider Great Yarmouth and Waveney place.

Coronavirus

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Over the past few months, I have repeatedly called for an end to restrictions at the earliest opportunity and I believe that the success of our vaccination programme gives us that opportunity. We are all aware of the pain that has been inflicted on so many: leisure, tourism, hospitality, aviation—the list goes on. This has manifested itself in the loss of jobs and livelihoods, and although the Government have done much to mitigate the fallout through their generous support schemes, they have just scratched the surface when what people really want to do is to return to normal.

When we walk down the voting Lobby, it is never a binary choice; no decision is clear-cut and there are bits of every motion that we agree with and bits that we do not like. Any self-respecting politician with the best interests of constituency, country and party at heart just hopes that the stars do align. I have mixed feelings about the extension to the current lockdown rules. On the one hand, creating a wall of immunity among all in the adult demographics seems sensible so that we can move forward, but by the same token the ongoing restrictions on how we live our lives is killing businesses and people all over the UK. Not only is the cost to the taxpayer immense; there is also a cost to our hopes, dreams and mental health. The sooner that we can smash through lockdown, the better.

However, I have also been unequivocal that any policy decision needs to be driven by the science and it remains a fact that the delta variant is causing real concern, with infections, hospitalisations and deaths spiking alarmingly. Aside from all the disappointment, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer in his stated position at the weekend.

It may just be that our younger generation have an expectation of being vaccinated against the killer disease before all restrictions are lifted. It may be that cases are growing by 65% a week, and that hospitalisations are increasing by 50% a week across the UK. It may be that the NHS needs and deserves four more weeks to complete its job. Therefore, in the light of the evidence presented to me and the decisions that have been made in good faith, I will be supporting all Government motions this evening.

I would like to raise two final points. First, my central plea is that, when the list of authorised pilots is released, it must include flagship global events such as the Euros, Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, the Chelsea Flower Show and the Goodwood Festival of Speed. I am afraid that the alternative would be cataclysmic.

Lastly, I am increasingly concerned by the dichotomy between the unprecedented success of our vaccination programme and the ongoing risk aversion of the Government. As a military man, I am comfortable with risk and feel that we all now need to live with covid in a way that has not been achieved so far. Using military parlance, given that we cannot transfer or terminate it—and lord knows we have tried to treat it—it is now time to robustly tolerate covid. I have a feeling that all good will will be exhausted if the Government do not honour their promise of 19 July.

Children and Young People’s Mental Health

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. As we know, the Timpson review was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Education in March 2018 and published in May 2019. There is no need today to go into the detail of that excellent document, which is on public record, but I will highlight some key factors.

From 1998 to 2013, there was a downward trend of school exclusions. They dropped to a rate of 0.06% for the 2012-13 school year. However, that level has increased in recent years. For example, in 2017-18, there were almost 8,000 permanent exclusions in state-funded schools across all levels, a rate of 0.1%. The reasons are multifarious, including persistent disruptive behaviour and physical assaults against pupils and adults. Most intriguingly, the exclusion rates for children with special educational needs are much higher than average. With overall permanent exclusion set at 0.1% in 2016-17, it was 0.35% over the same period—three and half times the problem. So, indeed, Houston, we have a problem.

We are not here today to admire our challenges, but to solve them, so what do we need to do? The SEND review is expected imminently, but it is a matter for DFE and DHSC. First, we need to invest in our SEN children as never before. Yes, many are disruptive, hard to handle and come with a range of issues, but what about their energy, skills and strengths? If we can harness them to best effect, just think of the rewards.

Why might that work? By getting to the root cause of the issues, providing focused intervention and allowing children to fulfil their potential in the right environment, rather simply be excluded because it is all too difficult, we can get the best out of them. By providing the right care in the right settings, we can give them the focus they need to be productive, employable, law-abiding and responsible citizens, because we have addressed the root causes.

Our prisons are sadly full of people who have made the wrong decisions or acted impulsively, because they were not diagnosed at an early age, so let’s invest in all our kids to give them the best possible chance.

I want every single local authority in the UK to comprehensively review their SEN provision, so that it becomes available in every area. In other words, every authority should provide specialist in-house provision. Specialist and dedicated settings are the way forward, and I want more dedicated schools established for SEN. Why? It is because it is not fair on the 95% of children in a class if 5% are disruptive, nor is it fair on the 5% to be constantly out on a limb, feeling the odd one out or being excluded. Let us separate the children, where we need to, but also be free to adopt hybrid models where access to the mainstream will still be beneficial. It is about a needs-must basis—individually streamlined to each child.

Why is it necessary for local authorities to do that? It is because it is the right thing to do. Our children are closer to home and enjoy the normality that they crave. It would also save on the exorbitant cost of providing taxi fares to schools a long distance away and perhaps even save the huge school fees of private education, when this should be provided in the state sector.

We must also give our teachers better training in identifying special needs and processing the education, health and care plans. I know of many families who are simply swept under the carpet, waiting for years for someone to take them seriously and for the EHCP to be authorised. This cannot be a golden ticket for the lucky few, but a rightful passport for every child to get what they need. Please, let’s speed up the EHCP process and hold headteachers and councils to account. And please don’t get me started on local councils that fail to acknowledge hidden disabilities or autism in applications for blue badges—a whole different issue.

Lastly, our child and adolescent mental health services across the UK need 20,000 volts put straight through them. For families to be waiting up to two and a half years for a consultation, it is not only immoral, it is also, frankly, inept. The irony will not have escaped anybody that a GP cannot prescribe medication for autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, Asperger’s or any other mental health condition without a diagnosis from CAMHS. Therein lies a vicious circle: children desperate to escape their symptoms, parents and teachers desperate for solace, GPs unable to prescribe without a diagnosis and CAMHS unable to see these children, in some cases, for up to two and a half years. It is a national disgrace, but we can now solve it.

To conclude, I commend the Timpson review. Let’s get diagnosing, treating and spending and give all our children the future that they deserve in specialist educational settings that give them the chance.

Covid-19:International Travel

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure, Ms Fovargue, to serve with you as Chair, and I apologise for being chronologically challenged.

My contention today is that there is a real policy inconsistency between the success of our vaccination programme and the ongoing caution in our travel sector, and I will make three points, if I may. First, I would urge countries that are successful in their own vaccination roll-outs to open up and send people here, and a negative test result and/or a covid passport should be enough for travel to be fully resumed. Secondly, there is a need for clarity—something akin to the UK road map—around why each country is on which list and when they are likely to be moved between lists. Thirdly, as I said earlier, we need to support those who are employed by the travel sector. As we know, UK airlines have announced over 30,000 job cuts so far. That is devastating, and I suspect that more support is still needed for this important sector, along with support for hospitality and leisure.

To start with, the Government should be commended for the success of our vaccination roll-out programme, which is one of the best vaccination programmes in the world. To put it in statistical terms, as of yesterday there have been 37 million first doses and 22 million second doses—over 60 million in total, as one of my hon. Friends said. It is the best vaccination programme for any country with a population of more than 20 million people, with 89% of all adults having received one or two doses of the vaccine. We need to move as soon as possible to reconnect friends and family across the world who have been unable to spend time together throughout the pandemic.

The speed at which we open up our travel sector is paramount, and we must prioritise business travel to countries where the national vaccination programmes have proved successful, such as the United States, which will lift the burden on our travel sector to a certain degree. And we need one or other countries to be added at this point in time to the green list, too.

The reasons for travel are multifarious, as we have heard. Travel is about leisure, family, business, emergency travel and of course holidays—and why not? In the UK, 76% of people are deemed to have plans to fly abroad in the next 12 months. In 2019, over 21 million trips were made by air for the purpose of visiting friends and family overseas. Also, the figures of the Business Travel Association, whose member travel management companies account for more than 90% of all travel booked in the UK, equate to 6.4 million journeys and 32 million transactions, resulting in £220 billion of UK GDP in a typical year. And that is just by air. These figures are eye-watering and our economy depends upon travel. However, the resumption of business travel can only begin in earnest once the green list is updated. As I mentioned earlier and as I will say again now, it must also include major business hubs, such as New York, Singapore, Frankfurt and Dubai. And that is just a start.

What about Bracknell? My constituency is very important to me. I have 15 travel agency businesses that employ people in Bracknell; my constituents work at Heathrow, Gatwick and beyond; we have hundreds of jobs in the travel and tour operators sector in Bracknell; and there are literally thousands of people who want and need to get away, and that is not next month, but now. We need to open up comprehensively as quickly as possible. And, of course, our country is global; it is part of the international diasporas. It depends upon global trade and global movement, and it is movement that remains essential to getting our economy up and running once again.

To conclude, it is now time to get back to normal. Yes, new variants, such as the Indian mutation, are worrying, but mankind has lived under the spectre of new viruses for centuries and thankfully has mitigated this one with our fantastic vaccination programme. So it is now time to open up safely, and life, as we know it, has to go on.

Mental Health Act Reform

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That is a very important question. I do not recognise that 71 figure; I will look into it and write to the hon. Lady with my full understanding of the situation, having consulted with Health Education England. The short answer to her question is that we are hiring psychiatrists and mental health nurses, who play such a critical role.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Mental health is so important, not least for our veterans, so I commend the Secretary of State for his hard work and for this excellent initiative at a busy time for the country. One area was not covered in the statement, however: child and adolescent mental health services. Will he look at that as a matter of urgency? Families are waiting a long time for appointments at CAMHS and are living in desperate times, so I ask for his reassurance on that issue.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. I can give the reassurance that for those who need to access IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—services and talking therapies for lower-level mental health conditions, the waiting time has come down quite considerably. In the latest data I saw, it was 15 days, which is a considerable improvement. The services for more serious mental health conditions are under pressure at the moment and putting more resources into them will be critical.