National Security and Investment Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

First, I would like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who took the Bill through on Second Reading. I pay tribute to him for being such a motivating force behind this Bill, and also for providing excellent leadership in our Department up to only a couple of weeks ago. I wish him well, and I am sure he will continue the excellent work that he has already started as president of COP26, which I am sure will be a brilliant and vital success.

I would like to return to the very core of why we need this Bill. As my right hon. Friend told this House, the UK remains

“open for business, but being open for business does not mean that we are open to exploitation. An open approach to international investment must also include”—

has to include—

“appropriate safeguards to protect our national security.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 205.]

This Bill provides those safeguards.

Subject to the debate in the other place and the views of the other place, the Government will be automatically informed of certain acquisitions in key sectors and will be able to scrutinise a range of others across the economy. The Government will also be able to look at deals involving assets, including intellectual property, whose acquisition might pose a national security concern. There will be no thresholds for intervention, as there are currently under the Enterprise Act 2002. This means that acquisitions involving emerging innovative businesses will also be covered by the Bill. All this adds up to a significant upgrade to our abilities and powers to reflect the sweeping technological, economic and geopolitical changes across the globe over the past 20 years.

I would like to make further acknowledgement of the work done so ably by those from across the House and in my Department that has got us to this point. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and the Bill team for their fantastic work to date. He even managed to convince me. I know he is working flat out to ensure we can all return to normal before too long. I thank those who have ensured that the proceedings of this House continued without any disruption in the meantime. I therefore place on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, my thanks to you, to Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff who have ensured that today’s proceedings and previous stages of the Bill were undertaken with exemplary smoothness—no mean feat in the circumstances.

I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee from across the House for their keen and diligent scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly its Chairs, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I also thank all those who contributed to this very important debate. We heard from eminent Select Committee Chairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) is no longer in his place, but I have known him for a very long time, and I was very pleased to hear his able contribution to this debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. His expertise is widely acknowledged across the House and was brought to bear in the proceedings.

In addition, we heard from Members from across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is an acknowledged expert, and devotes himself to these highly important issues. There were also contributions I noted from the hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions.

Although there have been one or two differences, I have above all been struck by the broad consensus that has emerged across the House on the Bill, and by how important it is that we all agree that the Government should act in this area. There is a degree of debate about the details of the Bill. I thank the Opposition Front Benchers—the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah)—and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). All have acknowledged the need for this crucial legislation. Broadly, they have approached the Bill in a constructive manner. For that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and I are and have been extremely grateful.

Returning to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West said on Second Reading, this country has always been a beacon for inward investment and a champion of free trade. The Bill does not change that. It does not turn its back on that history, but it feels very apposite for me to say that prosperity and security should go hand in hand. The Bill really captures that insight and represents a proportionate approach to the threats we face in today’s world. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As this is the first time I have been in the Chair since your promotion and appearance at the Dispatch Box, I congratulate you on your new role.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) [V]]

May I begin by adding my congratulations to the new Secretary of State? Promotion to the Cabinet with such an important role as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy must be a proud moment for him, and it is in the interests of the country that he succeeds, so I offer him my warmest congratulations. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). We all wish him incredibly well in his important job as the full-time president of COP26. He and I approached our exchanges in a constructive spirit, meeting, I hope, the mood of the times, and I hope that I can have the same relationship with the Secretary of State.

If you will allow me to, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend our congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Harris; I think it is right to, as they came to office only in the last hour. The world already feels a better, fairer, and safer place than it did yesterday.

In this Third Reading debate, let me make it clear that we welcome and support the Bill as a necessary step in protecting our national security interests. It is important that we legislate to ensure that our national security is preserved in the face of evolving geopolitical, economic and, in particular, technological threats. Our country has been behind the curve on this issue and behind our allies, so action is long overdue. The Bill represents a belated recognition that the country requires a stronger regime to protect its national security.

Protecting national security is the essential, first duty of any Government, but it is only the first building block of an industrial policy. Before I discuss the Bill in more detail and how I hope it will be improved in the other place, I emphasise to the Secretary of State that while it is welcome, it forms only one part, though a particularly important part, of protecting, developing and nurturing key sectors of our economy. There are much wider lessons on which we still need to act on industrial policy. That forms the essential context for the Bill, and I flag it to the Secretary of State, as it is early in his tenure.

I say this in the constructive spirit that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: I gather that the Secretary of State has said that he is a convert to industrial policy after, if I can put it this way, his wilder, free-market days. The days of his notorious pamphlet, “Britannia Unchained”, are apparently over, but there are important lessons that we have to draw on; the most fundamental is that good words from Government on strategic, mission-led industrial policy are welcome, but too often they are still not matched by deeds. That has been clear during this economic crisis.

One example is the scale of support provided to our manufacturing sector. Time after time, I have spoken to manufacturers who look enviously at support in other countries and say that the Government are simply not in the same league. We see it, too, in plans for a green recovery; I am afraid that the stimulus offered by France, Germany and others puts us in the shade. Indeed, while we have been debating the Bill, President Biden has, on being inaugurated, made a $2 trillion commitment to the green economy.

Our takeover regime is not fit for purpose when it comes to matters well beyond national security, either, as events over the last decade have shown—for example, there was Pfizer’s attempted takeover of AstraZeneca, and SoftBank’s takeover of Arm.

It is clearer than ever that when it comes to the big challenges facing this country, from national security to the climate emergency and our future prosperity, an active industrial policy will be one of the most important tools in our arsenal. The challenge for the Secretary of State is to match his words on industrial policy with deeds, and we will judge him on that. We certainly need to drop the tired, failed cliché that all the state can do to support the economy is get out of the way, deregulate, and cut workers’ rights. If that is the Secretary of State’s view of how best to support our economy, let me tell him that we will fight him every step of the way.

On the Bill, we have approached the task of legislating constructively, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for the brilliant job she has done in taking the Bill through the House on behalf of the Opposition. I also put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for their work on the Bill. I acknowledge the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has a big and important task relating to public health, and has also done an assiduous job on the Bill.

As we saw on Report, there are three particular ways in which Opposition Members believe that the Bill needs to be improved. I will briefly put them on the record, because they represent unfinished business for the other place. First, there is the issue of the definition of national security, and how it can be clarified for use in the Bill. We recognise, as we have said on a number of occasions, the difficulty of providing a comprehensive definition, given the evolving nature of the threats we face as a country. However, the Bill can and should provide greater clarity, not least for potential investors in the UK. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important that our country be open for business.

That definition could be provided in the Bill or in other ways, and would be an essential source of reassurance for inward investors. The Foreign Affairs Committee published an excellent report on this yesterday, and as we saw on Report, there is agreement between the Opposition and that Committee on these issues. We hope the Government will continue to listen, and will act on this in the other place.

Secondly, support for business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is vital if they are to navigate this new regime. As my colleagues said on Report, SMEs will account for an estimated 80% of mandatory notifications under the new system, according to the Government. Many small firms will struggle to navigate this new system. This comes at a time when hundreds of thousands of SMEs across the country are in perilous circumstances. That is why we called for dedicated help and support for SMEs—to ease the burden as this new system comes into effect. If we are serious about nurturing cutting-edge businesses in sectors such as robotics and quantum technologies, it is critical that SMEs in these industries are supported through the process.

Thirdly and finally, there is the crucial issue—it is worth spending time on this—of the resourcing, accountability and scrutiny of the newly created unit in the Department and its work. We all know from the experience of both parties in government that good intentions can be overwhelmed by challenges of practical delivery. Under this regime, the Government expect that there may be up to 1,830 notifications by businesses and individuals, with a further 70 to 100 being called in by the Secretary of State. The number could well be higher than that as businesses adjust to the new system. The Secretary of State has a big, profound responsibility, as I am sure he recognises, to make sure this system works.

It is also vital that the new regime be scrutinised and monitored. As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, that should include a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in providing an oversight mechanism, through which there is regular reporting to the House, and regular scrutiny of the working of the new unit. Secretary of State, our international allies do exactly that. The US, for example, requires oversight of CFIUS in exactly this way. The Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that the Committee is open to this idea. It is not about simply saying to the ISC that it can have a look at this if it wants to. It needs a proper, acknowledged role in this. It is in all our interests, and indeed the Secretary of State’s, that the ISC performs this role. That would reassure businesses in this country that there is proper scrutiny—undertaken in the right way, given the constraints around national security—of the working of this new regime. I hope the Secretary of State will ponder this matter and keep it under review. I am sure that it will be raised in the other place.

To conclude, we support the Bill as a necessary measure to protect our national security interests from evolving threats. We do so hoping that the Government have heard the constructive concerns that we have raised throughout the passage of the Bill and will continue to raise and that Members in the other place will raise, because I believe we can build on and improve the Bill as it progresses. We believe—I emphasise this point—that this is the first step for the active industrial policy that our country needs. It only marks the start of what is required.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to add my congratulations to the 46th President of the United States of America. In the past, I have worked on three presidential elections. I congratulate both Joe Biden and his Vice-President, Kamala Harris. I am certain that when they visit the United Kingdom, they will be guaranteed a very warm welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation. It is a well-deserved promotion, so congratulations and well done.

May I echo your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to the election of the President of the United States, Joe Biden, and his Vice-President, Kamala Harris? I wish them both well and hope they have a very strong relationship over the next few years.

We are all aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee both launched inquiries in 2020 that touch on concerns relating to the current Competition and Markets Authority regime. As the Library briefing for this debate makes clear:

“Comments from the Chairs of the inquiries indicated that there could be support for a strengthened regime in order to protect national security”;

I believe that today the Government and the Secretary of State have ensured that. However, neither Committee has yet reported in full, and I am keen to see their recommendations and findings being part of the foundation of any change in legislation. I know that the Government and particularly the Secretary of State, like me, highly value the work of those Committees and the findings that they present. I would be interested to see the work undertaken by those renowned Committees in tandem with the Bill to ensure that we achieve a holistic approach to this matter of national security.

Will the Secretary of State outline how he believes that those concerns are addressed in the Bill? What surety and certainty can we have, for example, that a small independent business that is setting up in Ards business centre in my constituency—a family-run business, with an American investor who is a close family friend—will not fall foul of this legislation, and that the Bill will not prevent investment by foreign investors in Northern Ireland, which undoubtedly has the UK’s most attractive investment potential? I would say that, of course, but I believe it to be the case as well.

Some have questioned this radical overhaul, particularly given that only 12 national security investigations have been undertaken under the existing regime. There are also concerns, I believe, that the expanded notification system will lead to a dramatic increase in cases subject to review, leading to bureaucracy as well as delay and doubts for potential investment decisions—a situation that might discourage investment. Again, can the Secretary of State assure us that investment will be encouraged? The impact assessment published alongside the Bill indicates that there could be 1,000 to 1,830 transactions notified under the new system each year.

Those are some queries—fundamental questions, too—that I believe deserve acknowledgement and a response, so I would sincerely appreciate it if the Secretary of State gave further assurances that we are equipped and ready to deal with these changes, and that we will not lose investment at a time when the need to rebuild is stronger than at any time since the second world war.

We need investment, but I agree with the Government that the security of our nation is paramount. I give my full support in that aim to the Secretary of State and our Government, and I trust that they will enable investment in areas that are straightforward, without backlogs or delays.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

In order for Members to leave the Chamber safely and others to come in, and for the sanitisation of both Dispatch Boxes, I will suspend the sitting for a few minutes.

Covid-19: Dental Services

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have a few housekeeping notes. The wind-ups will start at 4.42. There will be eight minutes each for the Front Bench teams, two minutes for Fleur to wind up, and a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions starting now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]]

May I take this opportunity to thank all in the dental profession for all they have done and, in particular, for how they have adapted to implement the huge changes needed to be covid-secure? I have direct experience of this, having received urgent care both during the first lockdown and yesterday. I know that I am not alone in thanking them, as several of my constituents have told me of their own experiences. On behalf of all of us, I thank them very much for what they are doing during these trying times.

At the beginning of the pandemic, dental practices across the country were instructed to close. This meant that dentists took a huge financial hit, which was compounded by the fact that many were ineligible for the Government’s financial support package. This was particularly true of private dentists. We rely on these practices as much as NHS ones to meet local demand, and that should be considered going forward.

NHS dentists have recently been asked to fulfil their contractual obligations in the last quarter of the financial year. However, in order to meet additional safety guidelines, they now see fewer patients. Indeed, 64% of practices surveyed by the British Dental Association last year estimated that they could only treat less than half the patients they saw before the pandemic. Practices also have to cater for the self-isolation of staff and patients, the general fear of older residents leaving their home for any reason and cancellations at short notice for all of the above.

I emphasise that dental practices are safe and continue to be so. I am grateful to the Leicestershire and Rutland Local Dental Committee, which allowed me to attend its Zoom meeting last night and hear the concerns of 112 local dentists. In an online vote, 80% of those dentists said they would not be able to hit the target for quarter 4. The added dimension is that should dentists miss the target by as little as 1%, they receive considerably less revenue for the work they have already carried out. Dentists are also given no leeway for last-minute cancellations and no-shows in their contracts, even though that may lead to those missed targets. I therefore ask that that be urgently reviewed, so that dentists are not punished for trying their hardest to continue to provide the care needed.

I can fully understand why the target was set when it was put in place just before Christmas. At that time, little was known about the new variant of covid and the case rate was dropping at a rapid rate. If it had remained in that arena, I certainly would have been clamouring for tier 2 in Loughborough and fighting to get as many businesses and facilities open as possible. Unfortunately, the new variant has put paid to that idea and a national lockdown has ensued. I ask that the target for dentists be reviewed in light of the current situation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Scott Mann.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—(Inaudible)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Scott, you sound like a Dalek, and I do not mean that unkindly. There is clearly a communications problem. We will switch to the next speaker and then we will get you back, Scott.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

The Book of Proverbs says:

“Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth.”

We are in a time of trouble and there are lots of broken teeth. While I make no aspersions about the fidelity of the Prime Minister, I can tell him that confidence in his Government, even before covid, was already at an all-time low with the dentists I speak to in Brent. There has been a total lack of investment in dental laboratories, a failure to recruit and train dental technicians, flawed dental contracts and chronic underfunding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has lucidly set out the key demands of the British Dental Association: abandon the activity targets; support practices to increase the number of patients they can see safely; prioritise access to the vaccine; safeguard the supplies of PPE; and extend the business rates holidays to dentists. I will not rehearse and repeat her excellent arguments; I want to give voice to the frustration felt by the dentists who continue to serve my constituents in Brent so well.

The BDA has catalogued the failure to properly communicate with the public, but what I had not appreciated until I spoke with my local dental committee is just how poor the Government’s communication with dentists themselves had been. I quote from their letters. One said that

“dental services have often been treated as an afterthought with no understanding of the NHS contract imposed on the profession. Dental practitioners found out in May on the news, at the same time as patients that they were to reopen in June…The panic and frustration this caused is deplorable. Dental practices, despite being high risk because of the aerosol generating procedures, were not able to access PPE from the Government portal until September and the vital FFP3 masks were not added to that until November. It is clear that little thought, if any, had been given to dentists and their teams.”

One dentist wrote:

“When on the 8th June our high street practices in England were allowed to resume face-to-face care, the reality of what a new normal might look like hit…fallow time means the number of patients able to be seen is significantly reduced. It was anything but ‘business as usual’. I ask myself, at this time, what would be the worst thing to impose on dental practices? Very high up on my list would be precisely what the government has decided to impose—targets. The emphasis on targets from the NHS clearly prioritises a metric and finance over patient interest. To achieve targets, footfall would have to increase and non-urgent patients be prioritised.”

My local dental committee tells me:

“Many practices are already finding the conflicting strain too much, and this comes on top of the emotional and physical drain of wearing full PPE for hours every day…The imposition of a target at this time serves no purpose whatsoever other than to destabilise, perhaps terminally, NHS dental provision, and to demoralise an already exhausted profession further.”

Covid-19 has been felt most severely by those who were already more likely to have poor health outcomes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Barry; we are going to have to leave it there because we have run out of time. I will call James Wild next, and then hopefully we will get Scott Mann back on the line.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Access to dentists in North West Norfolk, particularly for children, was one of the issues that I raised in my maiden speech, when I reported that constituents were being advised to register in Skegness. As I said at the time, that remains good advice for pink-footed geese, but it is not very practical. Prior to covid, my constituency had the highest population per dentist across Norfolk and Waveney. West Norfolk was the second lowest area for dental activity actually delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted activity carried out, and it had the highest percentage of patients who were unsuccessful when trying to get an NHS dental appointment. That was before covid.

During the pandemic, access to services has become even more severely limited, as the early results of a survey that I am carrying out in my constituency show. Many patients are unable to get treatment. The British Dental Association has said that 20 million appointments have been lost nationally, and access to emergency dental care has also been very challenging. I have helped constituents to access the urgent dental care that was there, but the General Dental Council reported that 50% of people did not know that it existed, which may explain why a fifth of people experienced pain or even took action into their own hands.

It is crystal clear that the level of provision in North West Norfolk is simply not good enough. This is a long-running issue. I have spoken on numerous occasions to the NHS east of England direct commissioning group, whose responsibility it is to commission those services, to underline the need for improved local access. I certainly acknowledge that there are challenges in attracting and recruiting dentists in North West Norfolk, and there have been positive developments, such as the opening of the surgery at Marham, which my constituents have been using successfully. I know that the commissioning group is actively exploring the increased use of training places to play a part in the sustainable approach to this issue, but it is of course important that the significant backlog due to covid is addressed and done so safely. Like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by dentists in my constituency, who are concerned about the activity levels that they are being asked to deliver and question whether they will be achievable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those concerns in her remarks.

What my constituents really want is a commitment to short, medium and long-term improvements, so they can actually see a dentist. My dentist in King’s Lynn high street closed in November, and the money for that should be used to recommission services locally. Prior to covid, the NHS planned to open another practice by the summer and to issue a procurement exercise offering in-perpetuity contracts, which should be more attractive to providers in the long term. Understandably, those plans are now on hold, which is disappointing for my constituents. They want a public commitment to address these issues, so that they know improved provision will be coming. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me to discuss these issues so that we can urgently address the provision, which is certainly inadequate for my constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us see whether Scott Mann’s audio is less scary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]]

It is an honour to be able to speak on this topic, but I have to admit to a slight conflict of interests, as my father, who worked as an NHS dentist for 39 years, is now deservedly enjoying his NHS pension.

Dentists were allowed to return to work on 8 June, with all sorts of new conditions in place—for example, PPE having to be put on and removed, deep cleaning of surgeries between patients and a period of fallow time for each surgery. Special regulations for aerosol-generating procedures and social distancing in waiting rooms meant that accurate timings were necessary to avoid people having to wait outside for too long. All these things meant a big impact on the number of people who could be treated, so there was less ability to complete target numbers. Additionally, on returning to work, there was a huge backlog of emergency-type dentistry.

Dentists were adapting to these new conditions and striving to meet new targets when suddenly, just before Christmas, and without agreement from the profession, their target of activity was increased from the original 20% to 45%, and it had to be completed by 31 March. This has angered the profession. Now, with the lockdown, it is worse. Some dentists operate a shift system in surgeries, allowing time for cleaning and fallowing, but older patients, of whom there are more in my constituency than any other in the country, may not want to come at unsocial hours and wait outside at this time of year, or they may be shielding and fearful of infection, with rates rising. All this contributes to dentists’ difficulty in reaching targets. It is no wonder that they are not happy. What does this mean? That safety could be compromised if dentists are forced to cut corners to achieve targets. With a lack of NHS dentists already in North Norfolk, this situation will only make problems worse.

I will quickly touch on the real problem of the lack of NHS dentists in my constituency. There may be many problems, but I have constituents simply not able to get treatment and having to go private for services. One surgery told me that they have not had a UK graduate apply in 10 years, as they want to work in London. What can be done to help that situation? Here is my plea: if you are a graduate dentist wanting to work, do not go to London, come to North Norfolk, where you will have a better quality, will be paid well and will have a lower cost of living, and your patients will be eternally grateful to see you.

Despite all this, patients overwhelmingly express appreciation for the efforts dentists are making at this challenging time. They and the patients deserve proper assistance from us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Other areas are available. Good try, Duncan!

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

One of the more surprising effects of covid-19 is that I miss going to the dentist—a phrase I never expected to use. Although we might recognise the impact on ourselves, we should be in no doubt about how difficult the situation has been for those who continue to work and provide vital dental services in the pandemic. It is different from the situation in hospitals, but still difficult and exhausting, and it carries the constant underlying worry of infection.

The situation affects the whole UK. I hope that the Government will take the impact on dental health into account in discussions with Holyrood. That is a significant motivation for me today, because we have accounts of problems across the UK. James Craig of the Scottish Dental Association has described the experience of wearing a respiratory mask so tight that it was like breathing through a pillow. Another dentist felt that the profession had been thrown under a bus. Dentists have had to try to deal with public demand and then abuse when they cannot deliver through no fault of their own.

We must also accept that there are wider consequences for our health services as existing NHS dental health care becomes stretched, meaning that NHS-commissioned activity targeted at oral health inequality will be at risk. Many of us could find it difficult to get timely access to urgent, unscheduled dental work. As that begins to take hold, increased unmet care will have a widespread impact on our general health and wellbeing, leading to more and more people turning to GPs, emergency care and potentially hospital admissions.

Research shows that, as with so many of the impacts and so much of the collateral damage from covid-19, the vulnerable will suffer most. That will exacerbate the health inequality on which the pandemic has brought a stark focus.

Recently, I was contacted about an issue that young dentists assure me affects them across the UK. Associate dentists’ earnings have been halved because their payment is based on the work they carry out and the number of NHS patients on their books. We are currently awaiting the outcome of discussions between Holyrood and BDA Scotland to find a solution. Like everyone else affected by the pandemic, they need a solution soon.

 I once put off having a toothache checked out, because it was not much of a nuisance and I was busy with other more important and pressing stuff; I would mention it at my next check-up. Before that was due, it flared up, became much worse, and I needed emergency root canal treatment. I also got a lecture from my dentist about leaving problems so that they escalate and become more serious. It is sound advice that we should perhaps listen to in this situation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Janet Daby. Janet, I will stop you at 4.42 pm, so please ignore the clock at the bottom of the left-hand side. Then we will come to the Front-Bench contributions.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. She has been a persistent advocate for dental care during the pandemic.

We are all aware of the widespread impact of the coronavirus pandemic. A&E departments are overwhelmed, intensive care units have been described as warzones, and essential operations, for example on cancer patients, are being postponed at great cost. In the midst of the sprawling crisis, the effect on dentistry has been overlooked. People have not received the essential dental care that they need, and dental practices have experienced crippling blows to their finances during the pandemic.

The Association of Dental Groups has found that dental practices in England suffered from an average of 45% losses in 2020. Dentists are crying out for Government support, but the Chancellor’s recent announcement applies only to the hospitality and retail sectors. Dental practices will receive no grants and no business rates exemption. The Government need to act so that it does not have a negative effect on our economy.

The ADG found that 35% of business owners expect to employ fewer staff next year, with some planning redundancies. We will lose practices from our high streets, and communities will be deprived of the care that they need. That needs urgent Government intervention and attention. The Department of Health and Social Care must work with other Departments to provide business support grants and relief. Additionally, dentists are still not acknowledged to be critical care workers in this lockdown—a matter that has already been mentioned by other Members, and that the Secretary of State needs to review. Patients have also had to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Janet; 4.42 pm has been reached. I do apologise. We move on to the Front-Bench contributions. I call Alex Norris.

Covid-19

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. He, of course, has been a huge champion in this House for the cause of mental health. I know that, as we speak, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), is involved in discussions and meetings about exactly that. There is already support in place, but she is very clear that we need to recognise, in the context of long covid and the impact of this disease, including its indirect impacts, that the future mental health of our nation is hugely important, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.

At this Dispatch Box, we have often had occasion to exchange grim statistics: cases, hospitalisations and, sadly, deaths. Of course, behind every one of those numbers is a person—a person with hopes, fears, dreams, families and friends—but I know that the whole House will join me in looking forward to exchanges about perhaps more positive statistics in the weeks to come, of more vaccines given, more people safe and more lives saved.

Before too long I hope we will find ourselves in a situation where we can look at the curve of a graph going up and up not with fear and trepidation about what it means but with tremendous hope, as we look at a graph of vaccines delivered. That prospect is within our grasp, and although we are not yet out of the woods and must not blow it now but must stick to the rules for a little longer until we can be safe, I believe that that prospect should cheer us through the difficult weeks ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I pay tribute to the volunteers in Clitheroe whom I saw on Friday helping GPs to roll out the vaccine there.

Some housekeeping notes. To those MPs who are contributing virtually: we will be able to see the clock on the screens in the Chamber, at the bottom of the right-hand side; you should be able to see the clock as well, and please try to finish before three minutes is up. It is a lot cleaner if you do that. To those contributing in the Chamber, the timer will be on the usual monitors in the Chamber, and there is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the House understand the seriousness of the situation that we now face. Yesterday, the chief medical officer warned that the next few weeks will be the worst of the pandemic, and the chief executive of NHS England said that the virus is spreading out of control in many parts of the country. As the Minister said, there are more than 32,000 covid patients now in hospital, up from 18,000 at the peak of the first wave. In my own hospitals in Leicester a quarter of patients have covid-19. Elsewhere this is 40% or even 50%, and we are preparing for those levels to hit us too.

On top of that, 46,000 hospital staff are currently off work sick with the virus, and the consequences of that are stark. Staff-to-patient ratios in acute and intensive care are stretched to the limit of acceptable levels, if not beyond. All but the most urgent operations are being cancelled in many parts of the country, including for cancer care. Ambulances are queuing for hours outside hospitals to get seriously ill patients into beds and some hospitals are even running dangerously low on oxygen supply.

Dealing with this awful virus, especially the new, more virulent strain, was always going to be extremely difficult, but I do not believe that the severity of the situation we are now in was inevitable. Over the past nine months, the Government have continually changed their message to the public, and have repeatedly been too slow to act, even though we know that the virus ruthlessly exploits ambiguity and delay. At the heart of the problem is the failure of the Prime Minister and some members of the Conservative party to understand that protecting people’s health and the economy is not a zero-sum game, because we cannot get the economy going again if we do not stay on top of the virus.

The individual freedoms that we all hold dear—our ability to learn, work, do business, travel the world and see those we love most—depend on the actions of others. No man or woman is an island. That has always been the case, but covid-19 has thrown our interdependency into sharper relief than ever before. Until the Prime Minister grasps that fact he will continue to make the same mistakes, and many in our country will pay a bitter price.

While most attention focuses understandably on the extreme pressures facing the NHS, the case I want to make is that we cannot protect the NHS if we fail to protect social care. Alongside the need for swift and decisive action, that is one of the most important lessons that should have been learned from the first wave, but once again there are warning signs of pressures building in social care which, I fear, have been downplayed or even ignored. The number of covid outbreaks in care homes has tripled in the past month. Care homes are reporting staff shortages of up to 40%. The latest weekly death rates in care homes are out today: 824 deaths for the week ending 8 January. Those numbers have doubled since November, and are the highest since May.

Ministers must heed those warnings and they must act, not just because after 20,000 deaths from covid-19 so far in care homes we must do everything possible to protect residents, or because care workers and unpaid family carers are physically and emotionally shattered after 11 months at the frontline and deserve more help and support, but because if we cannot keep people safe in their own homes or in care homes, or move them back home from hospital when medically they are able to leave, the whole system will buckle under the strain.

After all the problems earlier this year, with covid-19 patients being discharged to care homes that could not cope, the Government should finally have gripped the issue and delivered a proper plan. Yesterday, we learned that only 118 care homes have been designated as safe to accept covid patients from hospital, although the Government promised in November that there would be at least 500. Understandably, many care homes do not want to take covid patients from hospital, especially as insurers will not cover the associated risks. While the Government have provided indemnity against such claims to the NHS, they have still not done so for social care, despite repeatedly being asked to do so.

This is just one example of the way in which social care social care is still not being prioritised, treated or funded equally with the NHS. Frontline care workers are still chronically undervalued and underpaid. Almost three quarters do not even earn the real living wage, despite doing some of the most important work in society, looking after the people we love most. Millions more unpaid family carers are being stretched to breaking point, trying to look after the people they love. Even before the pandemic almost half of unpaid carers had not had a single break for five whole years, and since the virus millions more families have taken on an even bigger role, but with precious little help and support in return. So I urge the Government to consider what immediate extra support can be provided for social care—for care workers and family carers—over the coming months, when the pressures will be the greatest we have ever seen.

I know that across the country, as the Minister said, the vaccine provides real hope for care workers, care users and families that the nightmare they face can and will end, but we are in a race against time. The Government must leave no stone unturned in their plans to deliver the vaccine to all elderly care home residents and staff by the end of this month, and we will support them in their efforts to do so. However, we really do need to see daily vaccination rates for this group published so we know whether the Government are on course to complete this commitment in just under three weeks’ time.

People need to know when they can start visiting their relatives in care homes once the vaccine has been delivered, because this is currently totally unclear and causing real upset and concern for families across the country—people who have not seen their relatives for months and months on end. Ministers should also set out a more detailed timetable for vaccinating hundreds of thousands of other care workers by mid-February. This needs to include those working with disabled adults as well as older people, those working in home care as well as care homes, workers in supported living and personal assistants employed by direct payments. I think we are going to have to go way beyond the Government’s current plans if we are going to vaccinate family carers aged under 65 as part of priority group 6, as the JCVI now recommends.

The vaccine is the light at the end of a very dark tunnel, and as we begin to emerge, we must resolve to build a better Britain, not go back to business as usual. Nowhere is this more true than for social care. In July 2019, the Prime Minister promised on the steps of Downing Street that he had a plan to fix the crisis in social care. A year later, he again claimed his Government “won’t wait” to fix the problem, yet six months on his plan is still nowhere to be seen, and instead delayed until sometime later this year. In October, the Health Minister in the House of Lords said:

“There simply is not the…political capacity to take on a major generational reform…in the midst of this massive epidemic.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2020; Vol. 807, c. 226.]

That is not good enough, and I would argue that this is precisely the time we need a long-term plan of far-reaching reform to give people hope that a better future is possible after the horrors of covid-19.

We need a social care system that works for older people and working-age adults with physical and learning disabilities, who make up a third of the users and a half of the budget of social care but are still too often ignored. We need a system that fundamentally shifts the focus of support towards prevention and early intervention to help people stay living independently and well in their own homes for as long as possible; a system where social care is fully joined up with but not run by the NHS, so people do not have to battle their way round all the different services, telling their story time and again; and a system that is properly funded after a decade of cuts, so care workers get the pay and training they deserve, families get decent support and there is help from the wider community too.

Yesterday, 88-year-old Moira Edwards, the first person to be vaccinated in one of the new NHS mass vaccine centres, spoke for many of us when she said that she could not wait to give her family a hug. I know that that is exactly how I feel. This pandemic has proved once again just how important our families are, but it has also exposed the fundamental flaws in the system of social care on which millions of families depend. The reality of modern family life is that more of us will need care, and need to care, as we all live for longer. So if we want to provide dignity and security for older and disabled people, and if we want to help families balance their work and caring responsibilities, and offer more than 1.5 million low-paid care workers hope for a better future, transforming social care must be a national mission. Labour Members stand ready to play our part in one of the biggest challenges facing our country, but it depends on Government action, which they must take—and now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Just to remind everybody in the Chamber that we now have a new one-way system, so Members enter via the door in front of me, and exit via the side doors or behind me—do not enter behind the Speaker’s Chair. I call Sir Peter Bottomley. There is a three-minute limit.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for her response to the Minister’s introduction to this important debate. I take as the theme words from the annex to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice, which said that we had to

“maximise benefit and reduce harm”.

Before I make some suggestions that are intended to be helpful to the Government and to the JCVI, I wish to read out a few words that have arrived just now from one of my mature constituents:

“My husband and I were advised on Saturday evening…that the vaccination was available to us on Sunday”—

late afternoon—

“We attended the…Health Centre at that time.

We are writing to say how pleased we were to be offered the jab so quickly and by the way we were looked after at the centre…The staff were very efficient and helpful and made the whole event as stress free as possible.

All credit to all concerned especially those at the Barn Surgery.”

That has been typical for many of the 2 million or so who have already been vaccinated or had their first jab, and we hope it will be true for many, many more.

Let me discuss the problems. I was disappointed to hear that dental staff were not originally allowed to get the vaccination, as they were not directly employed by the NHS, even though they were NHS service providers. I hope that situation has been changed. I feel strongly about another small group, those with motor neurone disease, because of friends of mine who have had the condition. In Northern Ireland, people with that condition were immediately regarded as extremely vulnerable, although that was not necessarily so in England. Perhaps the Minister will say, either in this debate or at some other stage, whether or not that is so.

There are those whose absence from work makes a big difference to the service for the rest of us, and I would argue that reasonably healthy people in their 70s, such as me, can delay our vaccination so that younger people who are not critically vulnerable but whose work is critical to those who are vulnerable, such as the police and education staff—teachers and their support staff—can be vaccinated early. That will mean that they do not have to stay off work when there is some sort of threat around. I hope that the JCVI will find some way of bringing vaccinations for them forward as fast as possible.

There are other issues that I can go back over when an inquiry is held, but now is not the time to go into them in detail. However, I commend the wise family doctors and wise hospital doctors who from January a year ago were telling me things that would have made a significant beneficial difference had the Government picked them up earlier—or the NHS had picked them up earlier, because this is not all about the Government.

I want to talk about the excluded—those who do not have regular jobs, those who were properly paid income as directors. They have been excluded for too long—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The time limit has gone. I am terribly sorry, Sir Peter, but we have to move on. The clock is not on the next speaker, the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party, Dr Philippa Whitford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for Health for the way in which he opened the debate, with a sense of respect for people with all sorts of opinions on this matter. We ought to be able to reflect different views as part of a healthy debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is not here at the moment, for speaking about the importance of the use of data, and ensuring that it is not manipulated or abused.

From the very beginning the Government have had a clear plan for how we leave this awful cycle of lockdowns, and it has always been through vaccinations. That goal is now being delivered. We are at a very early stage of the process and it may be lumpy, but there is that commitment to have 13 million of the most vulnerable people in the country at least offered the vaccination by mid-February. The vast majority of those people will take up that offer. In fact, 85% of people expressed an opinion that they wish to take up the vaccination if it is offered. We can see a clear way out once those first four cohorts have the vaccination by mid-February, with two more weeks in order for the vaccination to take its full effect.

With that success, we should all expect to see a reduction or a lightening of the load in terms of the lockdown. People have carried this burden through all this time, since March last year; they need to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the lightening of the lockdown restrictions following the success of the Government’s vaccination programme. Many of my constituents are enthusiastically looking forward to their vaccinations, especially in Horwich, where they are looking forward to the use of Bolton Wanderers’ football ground, the Macron stadium, for this purpose. Hopefully the Minister will be able to comment on whether the ground is going to be used for the inoculation programme. The Royal Bolton Hospital and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust are doing an enormous amount of good work. I pay tribute to everyone working in shops, the council, hospitals or care services for the work that they are doing. But with the first goal of delivering the vaccination, we also need to see the lightening of the lockdown load.

The third goal—to get the hat trick—ought to be consideration of whether we need to renew the Coronavirus Act 2020. By renewing it, we set out for many people a fear that lockdown will be resumed in the autumn. By not renewing it, we are telling people, “You can resume your education. You can start your business again. You can feel confident of getting that health treatment,” and we get that recovery going.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Catherine West next, but Jim Shannon ought to be on standby, because we have a problem with the following speaker’s video link.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It goes without saying that we must use this opportunity to thank all our public health workers, as well as our journalists and broadcasters. My favourite is Victoria Macdonald from Channel 4, who seems to portray the pain and suffering, and yet the strength and solidarity of our health workers; a huge thank you to all our broadcasters and journalists, who are doing such a good job of keeping us informed.

I regret that the Government did not tackle soon enough a review back in the summer of what went wrong in the first wave, which in my view has led to our being in a third wave. Had we had an effective review in the summer and, for example, introduced testing in schools on 1 September, we might not be in the situation that we are in now.

On the question of long covid, I am on the all-party group, with many Members from across the House. We know that there is not a proper care pathway. I think of a 40-year-old constituent of mine who has not recovered, even though he suffered from covid last April. It is now coming up to 10 months and he still has not seen a specialist because he was never in accident and emergency and within a proper care pathway. We must urgently address that dreadful long-covid syndrome, which is affecting so many people who are recovering from covid.

I put on record my regret that we did not tackle the isolation strategy with enough energy, and with enough understanding of the lives of people who work in insecure roles, who desperately need to be compensated, whether for taxi driving or being a security guard. In all those insecure jobs, they need to be paid to stay at home. I also put on record, as many have in the debate, the 3 million excluded. It is probably more than 3 million. The work of the all-party group is very important, but it is particularly the creative sector that is terribly affected by the covid crisis. It has been going on for several months. People feel that there is no way out and they are feeling absolutely desperate.

In particular, I ask the Minister, first, whether nurseries will stay open. If they do, will nursery nurses be put forward for early vaccinations? Will dentists be higher up the list? They are very at risk because of their work, in terms of the covid germs. No. 3 is optometrists and then, of course, other professionals such as teachers. Also, prisoners, prison officers and prison educators are very much at risk of covid. Will the Minister please take back to the Justice Secretary the question of whether classes in prisons should be going ahead at the moment? I would not want anyone not to be protected from this terrible virus.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are just going to see whether we have the electrics sorted out at Sir Geoffrey’s place.

Public Health

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I am grateful to be able to speak in today’s debate. I start by extending my deepest sympathy to my staff member, Ruzina, who today lost her mother to coronavirus. Words cannot describe the devastation that this virus has caused to so many.

There are so many concerns that I have about the impact of the Government’s handling of this pandemic, and there are too many pressing issues in Lewisham East to mention, but today, I would like to raise the crisis facing our ambulance services. I have been speaking with a constituent of mine, Mr Clive Tombs, who is a technician in the London ambulance service. Mr Tombs told me of the sheer stress levels that he and his colleagues are experiencing. As the secretary of his branch of the GMB union, Mr Tombs speaks not just for himself, but for thousands of members serving the capital.

Staff sickness in the ambulance service is at an all-time high. Mr Tombs estimates that around 6,000 staff across the service are off sick, the majority with covid-19. He has lost colleagues to the virus and other colleagues are hospitalised. Many others are understandably suffering from declining mental health after seeing the very worst of the impact of this virus and the impact which it is having on our people. Post-traumatic stress disorder is also becoming commonplace.

Phone operators are having to play God in choosing who among the hundreds of callers will get an ambulance. Mr Tombs also speaks of the relentless shifts that those in the ambulance profession are working. Those on the frontline are working 12, 13 and sometimes 14-hour-long shifts, and all too often, they do not get a rest or a break before starting their next demanding shift. We cannot expect our ambulance service to work all hours of the day and night, providing high-quality care, thinking quickly, making smart decisions and putting themselves in danger, without having enough time to rest. I would be grateful to hear from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on this issue.

Many of us have been distressed by images over the Christmas period of ambulances piling up outside hospitals, particularly in London. Every one of those ambulances has someone who is in urgent need of medical care and, for some of them, their lives depend on it. A&E departments are not able to keep up with the level of demand, so ambulances, with patients in them, have to wait for hours upon hours—up to 11 hours, Mr Tombs says. They wait on trolleys that provide them with little comfort and are meant only for short use. Staff sit with them in vehicles but struggle to provide safe ventilation in the cold weather. There is no access to a toilet or a washbasin in an ambulance. None of us would like to imagine our parents, partners, elderly neighbours or loved ones suffering on an ambulance trolley waiting to be admitted. What is more—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Janet, your time is up. I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute. We have heard a great deal of consensus across the House. We know that there is a terrible toll on people—on our constituents—and every Member who votes in favour of these regulations does so with a heavy heart, balancing the impacts carefully and with the recognition that the measures must be for a minimum period of time, reviewed frequently and carefully monitored.

We have heard from many speakers about the impact on children. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) highlighted the terrible impact that the loss of social interaction during lockdown is having on young people and their mental health. I was pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today that getting schools back is an absolute priority. It must be. Teachers, parents and schoolchildren themselves have reached out to me, asking that I highlight their worries, as have those in the early years sector, who feel that they have not been taken with the Government and have been neglected in the announcements over the past few days.

Back on 12 November, I called for teachers to be prioritised for vaccination. I recognise that there are competing calls from all key workers, but I make a particular case for those working in special schools, where there is a very great need and where it is hardest for children to understand the importance of social distancing.

Equally, there must be vaccination for domiciliary care workers who are employed by charities or are working independently. This afternoon, Age Concern Hampshire has highlighted to me its worry that those workers will go unvaccinated.

The death toll among those with learning difficulties has been horrific. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) highlighted the work that the Women and Equalities Committee did on that issue in our report on the impact of covid on those with disabilities. The commitment to rolling out information in a manner that can be easily understood, whether it is Easy Read, large print, Braille or British Sign Language, has been inadequate. As a result, the people who need the most help have had an information gap. That is not good enough. Gov.uk still does not have a BSL translation, when there are apps that could do it quickly, easily and relatively cheaply.

It is not just those with learning difficulties who have not been given enough information. Members of Parliament have this afternoon asked for additional details about the agreed schedule of vaccine delivery and the approach to the equation between numbers vaccinated and the consequential lifting of restrictions. People have shown a willingness to comply with massive restrictions, but they want to understand the exit strategy. Early years providers want to know that they are as valued as primary schools. Golfers want a clear explanation of why a walk with their partner with no clubs is fine, but one with their clubs is not.

People are not fools. The science is difficult and graphs can be bewildering, but Ministers need to give us transparency and honesty—that is the key.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Karin Smyth by video link. [Interruption.] You are on mute, Karin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

This is a situation of state capture. The Government are completely in thrall to a lobby driving a policy that has manifestly failed—it has failed, or we would not be here yet again. It is a complete failure, yet we go through increasing iterations of it, with ever-tighter controls and restrictions, in the hope that it might finally work. And, then, when there is a possibility of change, as a consequence of the arrival of the vaccines, the crazed lobby has already begun to signal that the social control will not be over and that some restrictions will remain; indeed, the chiefs have pointed out that they might have to be reimposed all over again next winter.

To those colleagues who are contemplating voting for these measures this evening, buoyed up by opinion pollsters telling them that, actually, the voters are in favour of them and, indeed, that they crave even tighter restraints on their liberty, I would point out that when the devastating economic consequences of this policy come home to roost, and we see double-dip recession and years of slow growth as firms cannot take up new opportunities because they are saddled with debt, those same voters, who were so enthusiastic, will abandon them, and those colleagues will be back to point a finger of blame—and, on that occasion at least, they will be right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Definitely not on mute, Sir Desmond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must respectfully disagree with a number of previous speakers. These lockdown measures are necessary—they were necessary when they were introduced in Wales by the Welsh Government on 20 December—because of the sheer crisis that the health service faces. If we needed any more information to underline that, we only have to look at the statistics this afternoon: over 1,000 deaths—over 1,000 tragedies for families up and down the country, and individuals who are no longer with us. That is on top of an average 700 deaths every day—people who have lost their lives to this terrible virus.

Nobody wants lockdowns or restrictions, but they are absolutely necessary. If we need any more evidence, we know that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), is in hospital at the moment. This weekend, I had some heartbreaking conversations with people working in the health service, including in Cardiff. I spoke to someone who worked in the intensive care unit at the Heath Hospital, and the stories they told me were utterly, utterly heartbreaking. My thoughts, solidarity and support are very much with all those in NHS in Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and across the country who are on the front line, and are dealing with the reality of this, rather than the fantasies that we have heard from some corners of the House.

I want to discuss two issues briefly. We have to offer people hope on a way out of this situation, and that is why the vaccines are so crucial. I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care earlier on to give us some guarantees on scaling up production and distribution of the vaccines. In 1915, we faced what was called the shell crisis in world war one. I know about it because my great-grandmother was one of 12,000 women recruited from the cotton mills of the north-west to work in emergency factories, mixing nitroglycerine for munitions for the western front. It was a dangerous, complex and difficult manufacturing task, but one that this country turned itself to 105 years ago. We need to engage in that kind of effort and investment in expanding and adapting facilities for the production, bottling and distribution of the vaccine. We need greater assurances from the Government on that in the weeks ahead, not least so that we know they are doing everything they can at the UK level to get that vaccine produced and give hope to our people suffering under these lockdowns and suffering with the effects of this virus.

Secondly, we must not make the mistakes we made in previous lockdowns, one of which is about our borders, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and others have rightly raised. In January, February, March, April and May last year, we let in people who spread different strains of covid-19 around the country. We now need measures in place at our borders, because there will be more variants and more cases coming from around the world. We need to have the best systems in place. We were told we were taking back control of our borders. We have to have health protections at our borders, and we need those measures now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On behalf of everyone here in Westminster, we send our best wishes to Jo for a full recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

There have been more than 2 million confirmed covid cases in the UK, 71,000 people have tragically died, and a staggering one in 50 are now diagnosed with covid—another record high for this country. Liverpool has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. The total number of confirmed cases in Liverpool for the last seven days is over 3,500, an increase of over 2,300 on the previous week.

The new variant poses more of a threat going forward, and we clearly need to take action to halt the increase, save lives and protect the NHS, but this was not inevitable. Time and again, we have seen this Government refuse to take the necessary steps to save lives and protect livelihoods. We have the second highest death rate in Europe, surpassed only by Italy. On top of that, we are currently suffering the deepest recession of any G7 country. The Government have failed to rise to the challenge of the pandemic since last year, and future generations will look back on them as having done too little, too late.

I repeat that this was not inevitable. This is what happens when those in charge disregard calls by frontline workers, teachers, scientists, unions and experts for schools to be closed and for a national lockdown to slow the spread of the pandemic. Doctors at the Royal Liverpool Hospital in my constituency describe the situation as hanging by a thread, with major staff shortages and staff suffering exhaustion, the additional winter pressures and delayed medical demand still overdue from the first covid wave all adding to that pressure.

With hospitals at risk of being overwhelmed by the new variant and already facing this huge spike in infections with fewer staff than in the first wave, can the Minister outline what funding will be made available to bring extra support and staff into the NHS over the coming weeks? With the vaccines being rolled out as we speak, and the welcome news that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved to begin distribution next week, when will the Government produce a national plan for vaccinations? What steps will be taken to ensure that agency and outsourced workers in frontline jobs, such as hospital porters, cleaners and teaching support staff, will be given equal access to vaccines alongside everyone else in their workplaces, especially given that those staff are more likely to be at greater risk of contracting the virus?

Let me conclude by paying tribute to our valiant NHS, all the workers who have continued to work to keep my city safe: the council, public health, the community and voluntary sector, and the army of amazing volunteers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 6.44 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for saving me up till last. It is difficult to say something new at No. 67 on the list.

Let me say at the outset that I recognise the seriousness of the situation, particularly given the new strain of the virus. I recognise the huge pressures on hospitals and I pay tribute to them. However, I am not convinced that another hurriedly announced national lockdown is the right solution. That is why I am loth to vote for the regulations, especially when we have had just three hours to debate the biggest infringement of our constituents’ civil liberties that I have ever had to vote on as an MP, and given that Parliament could have sat all this week, and we would then have considered the regulations before they came into force.

The sunset expiry date of the regulations has been surreptitiously moved to the end of March rather than the end of January as we were earlier led to believe. The regulations have no impact assessment, and there are measures in them that were brought into law in the first lockdown, but later removed or relaxed.

I have said all along that the Government have a difficult job to balance advice about risk from the medical experts with the economic impact and the public’s confidence in abiding by the regulations. After 10 months, that confidence has been sorely tested and there is a high level of lockdown fatigue. It is therefore even more important that what we ask our constituents is logical, consistent and fair. Banning golf, tennis, angling and other outside pursuits was not considered logical previously and was relaxed in earlier regulations. Banning people from buying beer from outside closed pubs rather than crowding into supermarkets and off-licences was also inconsistent and relaxed in earlier regulations. It is therefore frustrating and regressive to see those and many other unnecessary and illogical restrictions creeping back in again. I ask the Secretary of State to be sensible and sensitive to the lobbying to remove them before they undermine confidence further.

My main point concerns the vaccine. It must be the Government’s single biggest imperative. We need a national effort—a “little ships” effort—to deliver, buoyed up by the sea of vaccine the Government wisely bought up early. So when Ministers and clinicians proudly claim that we will be vaccinating 12 hours a day, seven days a week, my reaction is to ask: what about the other 12 hours—the other 50% of the day? We should be vaccinating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until everyone who qualifies is jabbed. Many volunteers have come forward to work shifts in the middle of the night—many little old ladies in Worthing who would readily bring tea and biscuits round at 4 o’clock in the morning, with others to run the technology. If they are offered a jab at 4 am rather than four weeks hence, people will turn up.

We should be getting more juice, as the Secretary of State put it earlier, including by approving the Moderna vaccine already given the go-ahead in the US, for example. Create drive-through jab centres, develop online booking of slots, allow walk-in services for spare appointments, allow diabetics to self-jab when they get their insulin. Only when we are vaccinating full-time can the Government claim to be doing absolutely everything they can, at pace, to get us out of this revolving pandemic lockdown door.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Tim.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

First, I thank our dedicated and brilliant scientists who have given us the hope of a way out of this extremely difficult period.

At the start of the first lockdown, the Prime Minister stated that the virus would be under control within 12 weeks, yet 10 months on, we are rerunning the devastation caused at the inception of the crisis. The virus is spreading exponentially, many people are in hospital and thousands of lives are at risk. This lockdown is necessary to restrict the spread of the virus and to protect our NHS, and yet again the public—my constituents in Luton South—at very short notice are doing their bit to tackle the spread of covid-19. But lockdown is a blunt tool. Being able to move out of it is contingent on the success of the vaccination programme across the country, so the Government must ensure that they carry out their side of the deal effectively, by acting quickly to make sure the programme is a success.

Meeting the target of vaccinating those in the top four priority groups by mid-February will require the vaccination of 2 million people a week and a total of 14 million vaccinations. Although we all want the vaccine to be rolled out as quickly as possible, I am concerned about the capacity of the UK’s vaccine manufacturers to meet that target, given that the sustained lack of investment in vaccine manufacturing has left the UK acutely underprepared. The chief medical officer has stated that the vaccine shortage is a reality that cannot be wished away, and the Government recognise that, having already dropped the 30 million dose vaccine target set in May.

At the beginning of 2020, the UK did not have the capacity to produce vaccines to meet the demand created by a pandemic, so, shockingly, we are seeing the UK relying on repurposed infrastructure to make the Oxford vaccine. Sir John Bell has stated:

“The government has been completely disinterested in building onshore manufacturing capacity for any of the life-sciences products”.

In addition, one of the companies manufacturing the AstraZeneca vaccine in bulk is transporting vaccine doses to Germany to be put in vials. A decade of Government austerity has hampered our ability to tackle this pandemic, and after the Government’s failures in PPE procurement and the outsourced test and trace system, and their failure to provide sufficient economic support, particularly to those who have been excluded, they must now not fail in the roll-out of the vaccine programme. I hope the Minister will explain to the House how the Government intend to address the frailty of the vaccine manufacturing supply chain and to rapidly increase the number of doses available.

I am also concerned that the Government have not published a detailed strategy for the vaccination of all key workers. As we go into another lockdown, we will once again see the real value of key workers, who keep our country going. There have not been sufficient assurances that teachers, posties, firefighters, police officers—all frontline key workers—will be prioritised in the vaccination process. Will the Minister outline—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Rachel, but we are going to try to squeeze someone else in.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]]

Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can think of few things I would prefer more not to do than again restrict the lives of my constituents in Gloucester, but until we have immunised those who are most likely to need hospital help, the responsible action today is to support the Government. In this third lockdown, it is incredibly important that we help as much as we can all those involved in distributing the vaccine, to get us to the exit as soon as possible.

I know that the process of sharing information locally has been a real problem for some colleagues, but that has not been the case in Gloucestershire, where for nine months now all six county MPs have met regularly with our NHS primary care, public health and county council heads. I pay tribute to them all, not just for the leadership they have given to their organisations, but for the hard work of so many of their staff in healthcare, social care and care homes. However, we are often told that the basic facts that we are being given are confidential. Therefore, I ask the Health Secretary to agree today that the number of those in the top four categories in every area, the number vaccinated, the daily rate required to meet the 15 February goals, and the situation updated daily are basic facts that should be shared with every resident in our country. We can then have confidence in what is happening and what the situation is, and that we are going to arrive at the destination that we need to. That will also give people confidence that there is a real exit strategy from the lockdown as early as possible in the spring, so that people can go back to work as usual.

Secondly, I would highlight that although we all agree how important it is to get children back to school, confidence in when pupils will be able to go back is fairly low at the moment. One way of being able to get around this problem, even though I know it contradicts the principles of how the JCVI organises its categories, would be to vaccinate the teachers, so that heads would know that all their staff would be there and would not be at risk from pupils spreading the virus inadvertently. I ask the Health Secretary to consider that, as he considers all the other important issues about supply and distribution of vaccines as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Fleur, ignore the timer. We will stop you at 6.44 pm, but we are pleased to squeeze you in.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad to be speaking in such an important debate. First, I thank all the staff at St George’s Hospital and Queen Mary’s Hospital in Roehampton, who are working so hard at the moment to deliver much of the life-saving care that we are talking about in today’s debate. I also offer my condolences to the families of the over 1,000 people who have died in the last 24 hours, which really brings home why we need these measures, hard though they are. As such, I will be voting for them and supporting them. Our hospitals are under stress; we need to have these measures to save lives and protect the NHS.

I am highly disappointed about the failure of the track and trace system up to now, which I think is part of the reason why we are having to see these continuing lockdowns. We are not overcoming this disease, as they have done in other countries, so we have to get to grips with real tracking and real tracing, getting back to 100 contacts each. I welcome the roll-out of vaccines, and look forward to a “community first” way of rolling these out, in which local GPs—those who are trusted to provide and administer the vaccine—will be leading the way. I especially hope to see a vaccination centre in Roehampton in my constituency. I am disappointed that many people are still left out of economic support: a business rate holiday would make all the difference to my constituents and businesses.

Finally, there is still a failure to contract for scrubs. There are still volunteers making scrubs for our NHS providers, and this needs to be sorted out. I would really welcome hearing from the Minister whether I can meet with those who are involved with contracting on scrubs, along with experts in my community, who are still doing this on a voluntary basis when it should be done nationally. Thank you very much.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for being concise as well, Fleur. I call Alex Norris to start the wind-ups.

Public Health

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

As announced today, Leicester will move into tier 4. This is a city that has been in lockdown for longer than most. In Leicester we have not been allowed to meet inside any household since the start of the first UK lockdown—that is 10 months.

The Home Secretary was dangerously wrong to claim that the Government have been ahead of the curve throughout the pandemic. There can be zero doubt that on every major strategy the Government have got this wrong. The Government have lost control of the virus. Today there have been 50,023 new covid cases and 981 deaths. On 1 August, deaths from coronavirus had fallen to almost zero. We were at a crossroads. The Government should have opted for a zero covid strategy. Germany invested €500 million in improving schools’ ventilation. China brought plexi-screens into classes. Italy carried out randomised testing of pupils. In England, with no disrespect to our teachers, headteachers and excellent teaching unions, we put some sticky yellow tape on the floor, claiming that that meant distancing in the classroom would be sufficient to scare off the virus. The Prime Minister visited a school in the county of Leicestershire and proclaimed that students’ classrooms were safe. Within days of his visit, a positive infection had been confirmed.

The Government had a choice. Their own SAGE experts told them that opening schools would push the R rate above 1. Indeed, this week SAGE explicitly told the Government to close schools. In the first wave alone, 148 education staff died of coronavirus, according to the Office for National Statistics. In the second wave, deaths of teachers have continued to mount. History will judge us harshly for ignoring teaching professionals and scientists when they warned us to close schools.

The Government acted in the way they did because they perceived themselves to be putting wealth before health. It did not matter to them that African, Asian and minority ethnic people or the poor were more than twice as likely to die from coronavirus. As long as the City of London kept trading, they thought it was a price worth paying. What the Government have failed to grasp is that health is wealth. It was a false choice. By pursuing a zero covid approach, they could have crushed the R rate right down and bought time to implement a proper randomised testing system. They could have invested in online learning and proper equipment, including the internet, so that students could study from home.

Most of all, the Government should have trusted NHS professionals to run the test and trace system. By handing £12 billion of coronavirus contracts to people linked to the Tory party, they put donors first. Public Health England and local NHS bodies are ideally placed to conduct test and trace, and the Government failed to include them.

There is still time to save many thousands of lives, go further than the tiered approach, which at best gives rise to divide and rule, and implement a zero covid approach and a national lockdown. Yes, close schools and keep them closed. Listen to the science and give people the full financial support to stay safe, including the 3 million excluded. We are only as safe as the most vulnerable among us. Give status now to all undocumented workers.

The recently announced vaccine approval is inspiring news for all. Where politicians have failed, scientists have stepped up. The Government must now ensure that those most at risk get the vaccine first, which obviously means care home residents and NHS staff, but it should also include the minimum-wage workers who are getting us through this pandemic. A Deliveroo rider has more right to the vaccine than Etonian billionaires.

We must also make sure that African, Asian and minority ethnic communities and the poor are given fair access to the vaccine. We know that the elderly are most at risk from the virus, yet more than 70,000 Indian and Pakistani grandparents live with school-age children. The Government would be willing to place these communities at risk by reopening schools. I implore the Government to change direction before many thousands more lives are lost.

One last thing, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No, sorry. The time limit is the time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

This morning’s news that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved really is the best late Christmas present any of us could ask for. It is our best chance for the world to come out of the pandemic. It is testament to the genius and innovation that is possible when academic research works so effectively with the private sector in pursuit of a common goal. But the strong position the United Kingdom is in, getting early doses of the Pfizer vaccine and being well placed for the Oxford vaccine, and having robust contracts for all the leading vaccines under development, is due in large part to Kate Bingham and her fantastic team, as well as the effective leadership at the Department of Health and Social Care.

The vaccine provides a bright glimmer of hope after what has been the grimmest of years for families and businesses around the country. While there is light at the end of the tunnel, and very clear light, the tunnel ahead of us is still very long and the path still uncertain. Our immediate challenge is to minimise the number of tragic avoidable deaths until a vaccine can be fully rolled out and effective, but also to prevent our national health service from being overwhelmed by new waves and new variants of this debilitating virus.

Scepticism about national statistics and experts’ projections is not uncommon, particularly if one reads mainstream media or so much social media. There will never be a counterfactual that we can use as a control group and we will never know what would have happened if action had not been taken, but we can see what is happening in our local communities. When my local hospital in Dudley tells me that it risks being overwhelmed if numbers continue to rise at the rate they were last month, and when it tells me that a couple of weeks ago it had just four in-patient beds available in the whole of the hospital—and that is after relying on surge capacity—it would be the very height of irresponsibility and indeed callousness to dismiss those direct and dire warnings out of hand.

It is clear that action has been needed to tackle the virus. Looking at the rising infection rates we still see today, including in Dudley South, it is clear that further action is needed. However, we need to be clear about why the scientific and medical experts believe so firmly that the particular measures we are being asked to consider are necessary and, more to the point, why they would be effective.

In September, we were told that much of the spread was due to hospitality. As we know, most of that sector has been shut in much of the country for nearly two months, yet infection rates still rise. We have been told at other times that it is because of schools and universities, but most have been closed for two weeks, during which infection rates do not seem to have dropped off. We have been told that some of the transmission has been through retail, but in tier 4 areas, where shops have been closed for nearly a fortnight, we still see very high infection rates that are, in some areas, still rising. So we need to know where the infection is spreading, why it is spreading and why these measures will help to stop it. We know that the measures taken so far, and the new restrictions that are going to be introduced in Dudley South and throughout much of the country tomorrow under tier 4, are devastating for many families and many businesses—for economic, social and mental wellbeing. So we need to be sure that what we are doing is both proportionate and necessary for the very real and serious challenge we face. For us to be sure of that, we need to be sure that these measures have the best chance of being effective in helping to save lives and reduce the pressures on our national health services.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry we lost a bit of the video there, Mike, but we heard you loud and clear, with a nice picture on the screen.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The year 2020 has been grim for so many of us. Nobody wants the restrictions, but they are necessary and I welcome them, and I will therefore be voting with the Government this evening on all the motions.

The retrospective nature of this legislation has been difficult to stomach. Going on recess and then facing this on the Friday was difficult for me, as it was for all MPs and constituents, but this measure is not being imposed for any reason other than the public health imperative. At the back of our minds, we must always remember that.

I say all the time to constituents who write to me, “This is not personal. The fact that you can’t go and see family at Christmas, the fact that you are locked away for this awful winter—there is nothing personal there at all. It is simply the Government doing what they have to do to keep people safe.” I have had many letters from people in Bracknell and the wider constituency over the past few months. I understand their frustrations completely and I empathise with them. Having Christmas plans curtailed at the last minute was awful. Nobody takes any pleasure at all in restricting people from seeing their loved ones, but it is the duty of any responsible Government to take tough and unpopular decisions to protect lives. It is a sign of good leadership that the Government are making these decisions.

I again commend my constituents. The public have been resolute in the main in abiding by the rules, and the self-discipline we have seen across the UK this year has been phenomenal. We welcome today’s news of a second vaccine—it is fantastic—so there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we must look forward to a more positive 2021.

It has been a difficult few weeks in my constituency. Bracknell went from tier 2 to tier 4 in a matter of days, which was a bitter blow to the morale and mental health of so many. As of today, we are at a rate of 568 cases per 100,000. It is no exaggeration to say that it has septupled in the past month. Over a six-week period, that is a 1,000% increase in the rate in my constituency, and it is mirrored elsewhere locally. In Wokingham it is 413, in Reading it is 452, in Windsor and Maidenhead it is 509, and in Slough it is 646. The fact is that the virus is ripping through the constituency and beyond. This is the wave that we were fortunate not to have had so far.

Locally, our hospitals are really struggling. Wexham Park, Royal Berkshire and Frimley Park Hospitals are at max capacity, and today the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum was almost at the point of declaring a major incident in Berkshire because it has got that bad. When the stats are presented, it is irresponsible not to react to the exponential increase in cases, however tough it is to stomach. A decision not to act would have been a grave dereliction of duty.

To be a critical friend to the Government, there are three areas that I would like to concentrate on very quickly. First, on gyms, we need to make sure we do not curtail freedoms to the extent that people cannot exercise. We have known about the restrictions on the fitness and leisure industry for some time, so I ask the Government please to review the rules on gyms and all forms of exercise and sport so that life can continue as best it can for many.

Small businesses have also had it really bad and some are on their last legs. We have seen giant online corporations such as Amazon and Google dominating the market, continuing to sell goods with impunity and making it increasingly difficult for the high street to survive. There must please be more support for those businesses. We have also heard about the excluded, and we cannot ignore them. It is important that we do whatever we can, even at this stage, to help them.

I welcome the Government’s stance on keeping schools open. That is a necessity for our children and their parents, many of whom need to go back to work, but I implore the Government to maximise testing in schools and roll out vaccinations for teachers at the earliest opportunity.

Notwithstanding the grim nature of 2020, we have much to look forward to, and we must keep the faith. Last week, I visited the fantastic Bracknell vaccination centre, run by the East Berkshire clinical commissioning group, and what I saw there was simply amazing. I saw people in their 80s and 90s who had left home for the first time. I want to share with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) the hope that I saw, which was quite staggering. What I saw there was magnificent, and I commend everyone in the NHS, key workers and other key staff across the UK for what they are doing. We will get through this.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the last Back-Bench speaker, Richard Holden.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like many Members on the Government side of the House, and I am sure on both sides, the last thing I want to do is to be here again insisting on further lockdowns and further measures to restrict the freedom of my constituents. It is certainly not what I came into politics for.

We have had some good news today: the vaccine coming forward looks like it will put us in the final furlong for furloughed Britain, which is a really good place to be, but we are not there yet, so I will reluctantly support these measures today. I know that the Health Minister has been getting it in the neck from both sides of the House, and it is right that we as Back Benchers challenge the Government on the measures they are taking, but I have spoken to my local NHS hospital trust chief executive today and the trust is seeing a massive surge. Durham is going back into tier 4. It has seen a real spike in cases and a real spike in hospitalisations just over the last couple of weeks, after we had been seeing a real reduction in cases in tier 3 over a very prolonged period of time. It is quite clear that there is a real issue, so everything that can be done to get this vaccine out needs to be done. We really need to get it there as quickly as possible.

Like other hon. Members, I support SI No. 1518—the move from the Government on self-isolation from 14 to 10 days. We must do anything that can be done to improve the freedoms of my constituents at the earliest opportunity. I know that the support has been huge from the Government, but this is taxpayers’ money. It has been absolutely massive, with the furlough, self-employed income support and grants to businesses.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I want to speak about gyms. I have had a huge number of people in my constituency again getting in touch with me today, really concerned about the impact that this is going to have. I have had gym owners getting in touch because January and February is the time of year when they finally make some money, so any extra support from the Government for them would be particularly welcome. Anything in terms of instruction, via the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on discretionary grant schemes from councils for gyms would be particularly helpful. If I can make a targeted suggestion that those on the Treasury Bench can pass on to the Treasury, perhaps, when we get through this, we could push out a scheme such as “Work out to help out” or something similar for this sector.

High streets more generally, from beauticians to bookshops, have been particularly hammered. They have not suffered like some of the massive international companies, and it is those guys on the frontlines running small businesses—the hearts and souls of our communities —who have been really affected. Anything more to push support, either discretionary or across the board, would be particularly helpful.

I cannot not mention the hospitality sector. I was particularly struck by what the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said. Whether it is on Shoreditch High Street or South Street in Crook in my constituency, or Sherburn Terrace in Consett, or Stanhope town centre, the hospitality sector across the country has been absolutely mullered by this disease, so anything that can be done to help them now will be particularly helpful. I also urge the Front-Bench team to look particularly at on-sale beer duty cuts come the Budget and at whether there is anything such as a further targeted scheme around eat out to help out, when they are able to reopen, to help them to restart again, just to give them the confidence to get going again. That would also be particularly welcome.

As hon. Members across the House have said, keeping schools open is important, but it is also right that we treat teachers as essential workers. If we can get the vaccines out to them, that would be really helpful. So many of my school leaders have been getting in touch with me. I thank the Government for the extra cash for schools and, if necessary, the military support, but we have to get some more support to them to help, because they are really doing everything they can, on the vaccine levels.

Just on the NHS, I had fantastic visits to both Shotley Bridge Community Hospital and Weardale Community Hospital in my constituency in the run-up to Christmas to see some of the staff there on the night shift. It is quite clear, however, that staff are really knackered, so if there is anything that can be done to support our NHS staff, particularly in terms of mental health, that would be particularly helpful.

Finally on the vaccine, and in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne)—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Richard, you have run out of time.

Covid-19

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he will know, the comprehensive spending review will deliver forth, and bids have been put in across the piece. I am sure he will understand that it is not my place to answer, as those decisions are still being made.

We know that some of these figures relate to specific challenges. For example, endoscopy is still a particular challenge because of the aerosol-generating procedure. That is why I was really pleased that Cally Palmer, Professor Peter Johnson and other stakeholders, including charities, have formed the cancer recovery taskforce. They will be laying out a national plan for how we beat this, and also how we optimise the use of new treatment paths. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are using fewer radiotherapy treatments, or fractions, so that people do not have to attend so much. There is also oral chemotherapy and many other advances that need building in, to ensure that patients get timely and quick treatment.

As the first wave subsided, the NHS rose to the challenge of restoring cancer services: it kept focus and did some amazing reconfiguration work around cancer hubs and rapid diagnostic centres. I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a way to go, but I am aware of how much each day spent waiting for a diagnosis, for treatment or for an answer suspends time and feels like a year for the individual. We will continue to ensure that cancer services are prioritised and we thank those who work in the cancer workforce for everything they are doing.

In September, slightly over 86% saw a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral from a GP, and 94.5% had treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. I would really urge people who are worried about cancer or any other major issue, “Please, don’t leave it. Help us to help you.” It is always challenging, and many people have said to me that they do not want to overload the system, but doctors are keen to help.

A vaccine will perhaps be our most potent weapon, once we know that it is safe and effective. However, we do not yet have a vaccine. I must be very clear on that point. We are not quite there yet—we must ensure that we stick to hands, face, space and ventilate our environments by opening windows for short bursts—but progress on this front is encouraging. Last week, we heard about phase 3 trials from Pfizer and BioNTech, stating that their vaccine was more than 90% effective in preventing covid. Today, further data indicates that the vaccine is now thought to be around 94% efficacious for those who are 65-plus, with good data on many other groups. As I say, we are constantly learning. Earlier this week, preliminary trial data from Moderna suggested that its vaccine had an effectiveness of 94.5%. Additionally, we have had the start of Janssen’s phase 3 trials in the UK this week, and we will hopefully have more phase 3 trials reported in the next few weeks.

This is all very positive, but of course, our regulator will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe and effective, and the way to get there is via trials. On that note, I would like to give a shout-out to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is taking part in the trial, and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who is also doing so. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have registered, although I do not know whether they are part of it. I am sure several other Members across the House have also stepped up.

We have already struck commercial deals to secure access 355 million doses of seven vaccines, and the Department is working at pace with the NHS to ensure that we will be ready to roll out any that are proven safe and effective immediately. That will be a massive undertaking, and I thank everyone for their hard work thus far.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair yesterday, but I somewhat embarrassed myself by perhaps displaying more of the parent in me than the Minister. This country’s journey in beating the pandemic, however, has been a little like watching one’s child grow: it is a huge undertaking, it comes without a manual, we are proud of the successes and, when things are trying, we attempt to learn and move on—but the work is never done. Over the past year, so many parts of our country have risen to meet an incredible set of challenges; challenges they are facing every day. Only by ensuring that we have those different lines of defence, and by pulling together in local, regional, national and international ways will we protect those on the frontline and allow family and business life to resume and get back to a different, albeit more normal way of life.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As Members will see from the call list, quite a number of people wish to participate in this debate. We will start all non-Front-Bench contributions at six minutes, although clearly that limit might be reduced later on depending on how many interventions there are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I heard the point that the test had been clear that nothing wrong had been done, which, frankly, is a very low bar. I do not think anybody would say that there was nothing that happened in the early procurement phases that we would not perhaps want to change or do better later. I hope that the Paymaster General in winding up might reflect on that.

Perhaps this is the best place to say that the announcement on long covid will be very much welcomed by a lot of people, including my good friend Jo Platt who has been campaigning on this for many months, as well as living with her long covid. This is a story for lots of people up and down the country, across all our constituencies, who are living with the after-effects of this horrible virus over and over again. The act of knowing that they are being heard, as well as the 40 clinics, will be a real tonic to a great number of people, so we very much welcome that.

I turn to inequalities. At the beginning of the pandemic, we talked about the virus being a great leveller, not distinguishing between us depending on our lives, our jobs and our postcodes, but nine months on we know that to be patently untrue. Sixty per cent. of those who died were living with disabilities. Those of Bangladeshi heritage are twice as likely to die as those who are white British. Those of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and black Caribbean ethnicities are 10% to 15% more likely to die than I am. Mortality rates in the most deprived communities are more than twice those of the least deprived communities. This pandemic has shone a light on our inequalities, whether that means the inequality in work, in housing or in income, and these inequalities have had tragic consequences for some and, in the aggregate, are catastrophic for all of us.

When we beat this virus, which together we will, what comes out of it must be a fair settlement that recognises these inequalities as bad and tackles them head-on. That is why it is already concerning to see again—of course, leaked to national newspapers—that the overseas aid budget is the first on the chopping block. In 2010, the Government chose to target those who had the least to pay for a crisis that they did not cause, and these reports are a sign that maybe this is the plan again. We will not let them repeat this in 2020. It simply would be hugely unjust.

Before I finish, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our incredible NHS and social care staff for all they have done for us. They are truly the best of Britain. Similarly, the pandemic has revealed the key workers all over our communities and all over our economy, so this week, during Respect for Shopworkers Week, I would like to say a special thank you to those working in our shops, keeping us fed, but still facing rising violence and abuse every day. The Government should take better action to protect you—the Government could, of course, adopt my private Member’s Bill and I encourage them to do so—but whether it is that or through another mechanism, we will fight for you until they do.

In conclusion, now more than ever we must stand together as a country, as families and as communities, and show once again that at a moment of national crisis, the British people always rise to the challenge, support those who need it and pull together. That involves not only recognising successes, but assertively tackling the failures that have held us back during the pandemic. If we address these, we will beat this virus.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will begin with a time limit of six minutes.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It strikes me that, as MPs, it is our duty to make difficult decisions. We must face head-on the life and death challenges that very few people would wish to face in their daily lives. We must make contested judgments, and this debate and the response to covid is a case in point. Whether it is going to war with Iraq, which was before my time in this House, military operations in Syria or the very painful issues surrounding Brexit, we have a duty to reflect carefully and responsibly when confronted with complex challenges. It seems to me that our response to covid demands a similar level of reflection to reach our best judgments.

There are a multitude of variables involved in this decision making. Given that thousands of lives are being lost to covid, thousands of lives are being lost with covid, and thousands of lives are being lost by our response to covid, it is no easy judgment. Businesses are being forced to close across my constituency and across the country—businesses that people have spent their lives building up. Jobs and livelihoods are being wiped out. Civil liberties are certainly under threat, freedom of speech is threatened, freedom of assembly has been all but washed away in the short term, and even Parliament—even with your efforts, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the efforts of Mr Speaker—is not necessarily functioning as it should during a crisis such as this.

Looking back, I suspect hon. Members will agree that the first lockdown was absolutely the right thing to do. In March this year we were confronted with an unknown enemy: a deadly virus determined to secure its own survival by infecting as many people as possible, with sometimes fatal consequences. With incomplete information from China at the time, we did not know the fatality rate. We did not know the vectors and means of transmission, or which age groups were worst affected, or about its ability to mutate or the type of mutation that may take place. We did not have a ready treatment available for the symptoms.

That was back in March, but today we know so much more. We know that healthy children are hardly affected by the virus, and that is a godsend, considering illnesses and diseases from the past. We know now that the overwhelming majority of adults are reasonably safe: perhaps 80% will not necessarily even notice any symptoms. We know that people over the age of 65 and those with pre-existing conditions are, sadly, most likely to suffer the serious effects of the virus. We know that the virus is transmitted by touch and by being in close proximity to others, and that washing hands and maintaining social distance largely prevent transmission.

We also have far more PPE than we had when we started, thanks to the efforts of the Government. Even if we have overdone it with PPE and end up at the end of this pandemic with millions, if not billions, of pounds’ worth of spare excess PPE, that will be a good sign: it will be a sign that we prepared effectively, and it may be of use to other nations in the future.

We also know that modern treatments can halve the death rate. We know that vaccines, particularly the two new ones, can stop the illness by generating antibodies. We know that our NHS, if fully staffed, can treat those affected, provided that the inflow of patients is moderated over time.

We can see from data that the tiered local approach is having an impact. Data that we have seen over the past week or two is to do not with the current lockdown but with the previous regional measures. That is a good thing, because we can see that we can control this virus to some degree.

Of course, there is still much more that we do not know. That is why we will be forced to make a judgment at the end of this month, but that judgment must be an informed judgment. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to giving Parliament a say on future restrictions and regulations. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to try to avoid restrictions in future, if it is considered safe to do so, and I very much welcome the Minister’s comments earlier about the progress we have made in tackling the disease so far and our prospects to do so in the not-too-distant future.

To move forward I believe we need to recognise the costs of the restrictions in addition to the benefits of future restrictions. I urge the Government to do three things. First, I ask them to prepare a clear cost-benefit analysis of any future proposed regulations, in terms of both the health and the economic costs and benefits in the short and the long term. Clearly, the two are intricately connected, but it is very important that MPs in this House—the decision makers—have clear sight of the overall costs and benefits.

Secondly, I ask the Government to ensure that the latest data is available from the NHS on hospitalisations, intensive care unit beds and their occupancy, and death rates from all causes, very carefully categorised, perhaps against a five-year baseline. This summer we have seen that the modelling can, let’s face it, get a bit out of control and, on occasion, be more like conjecture than reality. When we make the decision at the end of this month, it is important that we are in a better position to see the real data and perhaps to reflect on it ourselves.

Thirdly, I urge the Government—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but the six minutes are up. I know that before I call you, Mr Hanvey, you will be conscious of the time constraints on other people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman makes the extremely important point that the avarice attached to these contracts undermines any sense that the Government are putting their arms around anyone, let alone the whole country. I would be interested if the Minister could indicate whether the Prime Minister will heed SNP calls—in fact, cross-party calls—for a full public inquiry into the cronyism at the heart of this Government. Convincing answers are urgently needed as to why so many Tory friends, relatives, donors and prominent lobbyists were awarded jobs and privileged access to UK Government meetings and decision making.

The National Audit Office has exposed and confirmed the existence of VIP lanes in which unsuitable companies were often placed by the private offices of Ministers, and they were more than 10 times as likely to win a contract as other suppliers. Recent weeks have seen reports that £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to companies linked to the Conservative party. Concerns have also emerged over the weekend about privileged access for lobbyists with links to the Conservative party, without any public process or announcement.

With so much suffering across these islands, it is vital that there is full transparency and that the public have confidence in the manner in which the UK Government spend taxpayers’ money fighting coronavirus. As we heard last week from the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), rather than support experienced and established UK-based PPE providers, the Government chose 12-week-old businesses with no experience or capacity to provide PPE. How can UK-based companies survive when their Government cut them off at the knees? If everything is above board, surely the Minister will have no issues indicating her support for an inquiry.

Yet that is not the only economic vandalism of this Government during the pandemic. Despite the promises to wrap their arms around everyone, support remains poorly targeted and offers no relief for people who have become self-employed more recently or to businesses in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency such as RG Construction, which was denied £64,000 of furlough support on a technicality it could never have predicted or met. Will the Minister undertake to ask the Treasury to review these entry requirements to open up support to self-employed people and other businesses that have so far been excluded?

The Government sprang into action to provide countless contracts for their wealthy friends, but that sense of urgency is sadly lacking when it comes to taking action on social care reform, pay awards for frontline NHS staff or addressing the poverty of carers. This week on the Health and Social Care Committee, we heard evidence that healthcare assistants were not being provided with the same standard of PPE as more senior staff, leading to stress, anxiety and burnout. This risk of burnout is all the more concerning when it comes to how we recover the delays in cancer treatment precipitated by the pandemic. The King’s Fund has described an already existing problem of chronic excessive workload in the NHS. This week we heard expert evidence that that, in combination with the culture that demands ever more, can lead to serious mental health problems. What action is the Minister taking to address these pressures and challenge such an unhealthy culture in the NHS?

I would like to pay tribute to Macmillan lead cancer nurse Denise Crouch for her valuable evidence highlighting the pressure cancer nurses have been facing before and during covid-19. Macmillan has highlighted serious shortages in the cancer workforce, in which 2,500 specialist cancer nurses are needed to meet current demand, rising to 3,700 by 2030. I say with genuine sensitivity that this pandemic has thrown into even sharper focus the fragility of our NHS workforce and the need for fast-paced and substantial action. I would be interested in what action the Minister has taken to secure additional capacity in the NHS beyond March 2021 and to invest in the cancer workforce as part of next week’s comprehensive spending review.

Work-related stress is also being amplified elsewhere. Where is the urgency or action addressing the deeply immoral exploitative practice of firms firing workers only to rehire them on significantly reduced terms? This fire and rehire practice has sadly emerged in many sectors, most notably in aviation. Those are not the only threats to our ability to build back better after covid. To pile misery on misery, the Government are persisting with their plan—I use that word in the loosest of terms —with no regard to the consequences or the views of the people of Scotland.

What of the £20 uplift to universal credit? With so many now facing redundancy, this must be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits. These calls are backed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children. Can the Minister not see the need for this support and the positive impact that such support could have on health and wellbeing? If the UK Government are as keen they claim to be on protecting people, why is it that their own workforce in the Department for Work and Pensions, already equipped to work from home as part of a pilot, are being forced to work in an office one day a week in the face of covid clusters occurring among their colleagues?

In Scotland, we see things through a different lens. As a small country, we ascribe more value to the view that intangible infrastructure such as education and healthcare form the backbone of a country. The Credit Suisse country strength indicator places six small countries in the top 10. Small countries make up more than half of the world’s top 30 countries, with Scotland showing higher scores on the UN human development index than the UK as a whole.

Scotland must build back better, and that is only possible with the full powers of an independent nation. A new YouGov poll across Britain revealed that 85% of respondents from Scotland think that the UK Government are doing badly at handling the UK’s exit from the European Union. An expert study from Warwick University earlier this year revealed that Scotland is already £3.9 billion worse off as a result of Brexit, losing £736 per head of population, with Aberdeen the worst hit at £9,000 per head. Separately, Scottish Government analysis revealed that Tory plans to end the transition period in 2020 could cut £3 billion from the Scottish economy in two years on top of the impact of coronavirus. It is no wonder then that 14 polls in a row now show a majority of support for independence in Scotland, with the most recent poll by Panelbase showing support at 56%. I know that my focus on Scotland and the interests and aspirations of my constituents tire some on the Government Benches, but there is a simple and obvious solution available to them.

In closing, the difference between the independence regularly celebrated on the Government Benches and the one that Scotland will choose soon is that Scotland wants independence to join the world whereas the real separatists sat on the Government Benches have sought separation to be an isolated and rudderless state. It is no wonder that support to abandon the UK separatists is growing, and growing in the majority of Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The time limit is reinstated.

Covid-19

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he makes his points, which is, as ever, measured and reasonable. As I have said, I entirely understand—as anyone in this House will, from looking at their own casework and their constituents’ letters—the situations that some people still find themselves in, despite the unprecedented package of support that has been put in place. I know that he would not expect me to speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I know that my right hon. Friend will have heard the point that he has made. Indeed, other Members of this House have made it on other occasions on behalf of their constituents.

This tough emotional and economic toll is why we are determined to make every day count in our battle against the virus. Our NHS has been preparing for this second wave for months, and as we move into winter, it is better prepared than before, with 30,000 ventilators and billions of items of PPE, mostly made here at home. In that context, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has done so much, as the Minister with responsibility for this area, to ensure that we have the PPE that we need at this time. There are also over 13,000 more nurses and almost 8,000 more doctors, and £450 million is being spent as we speak to further upgrade accident and emergency departments. There is increased capacity in our hospitals, and the Nightingales are standing ready as an insurance policy.

What is more, we know more about the virus than before. We know how we can better stop it and how we can better treat it. We have therefore strengthened infection control procedures and, as a result, we are driving down hospital-acquired infections. We have also improved clinical techniques, and I pay tribute to the clinicians and scientists who have driven these developments. As a result, the number of people surviving covid in hospital is up, as I said earlier. But of course, an increase in survival rates means that the pressure on NHS beds remains high. Equally concerning to the House will be the toll this disease takes not just on immediate physical health but on mental health. Our medical community is also working hard to understand the impact of so-called long covid and the potential for long-term chronic conditions resulting from the illness, even when people may have felt they were unaffected when they had it.

In social care, too, we have rightly taken important steps to protect people in care and those who care for them. Our social care winter plan, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, strengthens protections in social care, including on the provision of PPE, regular testing and updated systems for safe discharge. Those will be crucial in the months to come. She recently set out the latest guidance for care home visits, which sought to strike the incredibly difficult balance on providing vital protections for the health and wellbeing of our most vulnerable people, while protecting the people who work there and seeking to allow those vital family visits.

We have also built the largest testing capacity of any country in Europe. From an almost standing start in the spring, we have conducted some 34 million tests so far, and yesterday our polymerase chain reaction testing capacity stood at 504,491. More than 10 million people in the UK have been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is approaching 20 million downloads. In Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool, we are piloting cutting-edge lateral flow tests, which can deliver a result on infection in just 15 minutes. Starting yesterday, we are rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, using a range of testing technologies so that we can better seek to keep both staff and patients safe. On Monday, the Secretary of State wrote to 67 directors of public health who had an expressed an interest to him to make 10,000 tests immediately available to other areas across the country and to make lateral flow tests available for local officials and devolved Administrations according to local needs, at a rate of 10% of their population per week.

Those bold new steps are a key weapon in our battle against the virus, but of course I know that the hopes of the nation are, understandably, pinned on the possibility of a safe and effective vaccine. That felt another step closer on Monday, as we all welcomed the announcement from Pfizer and BioNTech of a vaccine that they state is more than 90% effective. As an early mover, the UK has already secured 40 million doses of that vaccine. It is important to note that it is just one of many vaccines in development, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that are yet to report phase 3 results. I always seek to sound a note of caution at this Dispatch Box and in the media, and it is important that I echo the words of caution from the Secretary of State yesterday: the full safety data for the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available, and our regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Secretary of State will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe. This is a promising step forward, but we must remain cautious. So until we can roll out a proven vaccine, we must continue to follow the existing rules of “hands, face, space” because this remains a deadly virus.

In closing, let me say that in recent months this country has faced some tough and challenging times. We continue to face tough and challenging times, and many up and down our country have made huge sacrifices and continue to do so, be they individuals, families or businesses. I pay tribute to them all. There are no easy solutions, but we have risen to and beaten such challenges in the past, although different ones, and we can do so again, through a unity of spirit, by coming together as a country and by our shared determination to do the right thing. The recent announcement of a potential vaccine offers hope for the future, and while we pursue that prospect at speed, our greatest strength lies in the common sense, determination and resilience of the people of our great country. I am convinced that, with that and together, we will beat this dreadful disease.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Justin Madders, and to help Members plan a little better, let me say that the time limit will come in after Sir Desmond Swayne, who sits fifth on the call list. So Members who are between five and 10 on the list will have five minutes, and those after 10 will have four minutes. The time limit may be reduced later on, depending on what Dame Rosie Winterton wishes to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about covid-19, the pandemic in our constituencies right now, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is taking us back into the 1980s. Is that as it should be?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I know that he will be conscious of the number of people who wish to contribute to this debate. I know him to be a fair man and we are coming now to exactly the same timings of the other Front-Bench contributions, so if he could come to a conclusion, that would be really useful.

[Neale Hanvey]

It may not be the perception of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that this is important to covid, but it is in Scotland and I am speaking to the people in Scotland.

The policies that exist to support us exist in Scotland because people vote for parties that campaign for these political choices. Prior to the 2014 referendum, Business for Scotland analysis revealed that, in each of the 30 previous years, Scotland generated more tax revenue per head for the UK Treasury than the rest of the UK. The subsidy myth was well and truly busted. The Prime Minister or Conservative Members talk of the generous handout from this Government, but it is not a handout; it is our money. It is our money that they are giving back to us. Scotland’s economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations that, quite frankly, would love to have Scotland’s economic advantages and natural resources, illustrates vividly the dreadful impact of Westminster’s continued economic mismanagement.

In closing—[Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Conservative Members might not like it. Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris recently referenced the following quote:

“Democracy is not a state. It is an act”.

To those aspiring for statehood in Scotland, I say this: it is time for democracy and it is time to act like a state.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is now a five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I want to start with a quote from the incomparable C. S. Lewis, who said:

“The duty of planning tomorrow’s work is today’s duty”.

That is what I want to talk about—our duty to get several steps ahead of this virus so that we are on the front foot in the future. There is no doubt that this pandemic has tested every aspect of government. Right around the world, leaders have had to react fast to the extreme challenges that have faced them.

I know how annoying it is when former Cabinet Ministers poke at Front-Bench colleagues, so I make my remarks today with full appreciation of how hard this is; it is much easier to give advice than to actually make it happen. I simply want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give the House an update on whether the Government are now fighting fit, whether we are now outpacing the virus, and whether we can now get several steps ahead and think about the future beyond the pandemic.

First, with the fantastic news of the possibility of a vaccine, can my hon. Friend tell us how the Government have combined the efforts of public and private sectors, to make sure that every aspect of the vaccine programme is scalable from day one across the UK? Secondly, the evidence of the testing programme in Liverpool shows yet again how fantastic our armed forces are at dealing with complex logistics, so can my hon. Friend confirm that their expertise will be used in every part of the country? Thirdly, can my hon. Friend confirm that all preparations are in place to distribute the first wave of vaccines, to determine precisely who will receive them and in what order of priority?

All those steps are vital in giving us an advantage on the path to a post-covid future. Only then can we really set our sights on our ambition for economic success as an independent, sovereign United Kingdom. With that in mind, first, can my hon. Friend provide reassurance that the Government are looking ahead at the potential for the UK to lead the world in tackling global climate change? That is not only the right thing to do but, for this generation, it provides massive potential for new jobs and growth, and will help us to build our global free-trade relationships as we seek to lead the world in decarbonisation.

Secondly, can my hon. Friend tell me how the Government are using the experience of lockdown to better understand how embracing flexible work as standard in all employment could enable the workforce of the future to enjoy a far better work-life balance and improve the quality of life for many people? Thirdly, can she confirm that the Government are looking at what more can be done for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy and the future job builders? Many business owners have seen their livelihoods destroyed by this unforgiving pandemic, and they will struggle to get back on their feet. We need a strategy to give entrepreneurs help and support, as well as confidence, to restart.

The pandemic has forced us to focus anew on those in society who need our help, including people who have suffered greatly. First, how do we ensure that never again will schoolchildren have to face teacher-assessed grades, with all the potential professional implications that that has for their lives? How will we make sure that younger children catch up so that we do not have a cohort who always struggle with literacy and numeracy? Secondly, how do the Government plan to help school leavers and university students who feel hopeless about their future job prospects? The Chancellor’s kickstart scheme is a great short-term fix, but it does not offer training or a long-term future path that many young people crave. Thirdly, what more can Government do for the most vulnerable in our society who have suffered serious harm and loneliness this year, including those who suffer from things such as Alzheimer’s or those with new babies who have been left isolated, with potential long-term harm for their families?

I believe that we have a bright future post the pandemic, but we must use the time that we have now to get ahead with our planning for the future. I began with a quote from C. S. Lewis, and I will close with another one:

“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.” 

Let us make that true.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. After Nadia Whittome, who may speak for five minutes, we move to a time limit of up to four minutes.

Covid-19 Update

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is down to the local authority, in the first instance, to notify a Member of Parliament, although often, if an issue is very significant, we in the Department will also work with the local Member of Parliament. The Health and Safety Executive takes a risk-based approach, so it is not possible to give a definitive answer about how often it should visit; it depends on the level of the risk.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Jacob Young, I would just like to say thanks for all the birthday wishes. I absolve anybody else from saying happy birthday to me. I am coming to terms with the fact that The Times added a year to my age. It is bad enough being the age I am, I do assure you, but none the less.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Last week, I spoke to care providers in Redcar and Cleveland who outlined that, when it comes to testing in care homes, two groups of people are still missed out: first, agency workers, who go to and from care home to care home, currently fall outside the weekly testing programme; and secondly, family members of those who live in care homes. If we can roll out testing for those people, they could be treated as care workers and enabled to visit their loved ones again. Will the Secretary of State urgently address these two gaps in our testing programme, to help lift some hardship from the most vulnerable in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am a fan of new technology—I am not going to deny that—because it can help to improve people’s lives, and this is one example. New technology, such as testing technology and quite intricate biochemistry, will help to enable people to see their loved ones in care homes. I cannot think of a better example of how new technology can really help to improve people’s lives. I cannot wait to see that happen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for answering the questions of 55 Members of Parliament. We will move on to the ten-minute rule motion, and then we will suspend for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Exiting the European Union

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this we shall take the following motions:

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

That the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

[Edward Argar]

Today we debate four sets of regulations that are critical in giving effect to the Northern Ireland protocol for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells, including reproductive cells.

All hon. Members would agree that donated blood, organs, tissues and cells play a vital role in life-changing treatments for UK patients, whether blood transfusions to treat major blood loss, heart transplants to treat heart failure, stem cell transplants to treat blood cancer, or eggs and sperm to treat infertility. Patients rely on those treatments every day. Many people would not be alive today were it not for the generosity of donors and their families, and I pay tribute to them.

The UK has always set high standards of safety and quality for blood, organs, tissues and cells, and those standards will always be of the utmost importance to this Government. The current safety and quality standards for blood, organs, tissues and cells are derived from EU law. Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made four statutory instruments to fix shortcomings in the current law caused by EU exit. These were made on a UK-wide basis and will come into effect on 1 January 2021. The 2019 statutory instruments maintain the current safety and quality standards across the UK. On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. We are committed to meeting these obligations, all the while recognising the unique status of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

These four instruments will come into force on 1 January 2021. They will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to be aligned with the EU blood, organs, tissues and cells directives, as required by the protocol. In particular, first, although the safety and quality standards will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021, for Northern Ireland those standards may be expressed by reference to EU legislation, whereas for Great Britain they are not. Secondly, the UK regulators for blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to act as the competent authorities for Northern Ireland in respect of the EU. That means that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will continue to meet the same EU obligations for Northern Ireland as they do now.

Thirdly, these instruments amend the definition of “third country” for imports into Northern Ireland to ensure that we meet the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol but also our commitment to unfettered access. That means that, from 1 January 2021, when establishments in Northern Ireland receive blood, organs, tissues and cells from Great Britain, they will need to treat them the same as those received from outside the EU. In accordance with our commitment to unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, there will be no changes to the requirements when sending blood, organs, tissues and cells from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The movement of blood, organs, tissues and cells around the UK is critical for patient treatment, and we are committed to ensuring that this movement can continue from 1 January 2021.

Fourthly, these instruments will require tissue establishments in Northern Ireland to continue using the single European code for traceability purposes, as they do now. Fifthly, the 2019 statutory instruments introduced some limited regulation-making powers into UK law for each of the UK nations. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 contains the powers needed to make changes in relation to safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells for Northern Ireland. The powers in the 2019 statutory instruments are therefore no longer needed for Northern Ireland, and consequently, these regulations limit that regulation-making power to Great Britain. These instruments also make minor corrections to the 2019 statutory instruments to change references to “exit day” to read “implementation period completion day”, so that the regulations will function effectively at the end of the transition period.

The regulators for the sector are working with licensed establishments across the UK to help ensure that they are ready for any changes that will arise from 1 January 2021. These changes affect only a small number of establishments in Northern Ireland—one blood establishment, one transplant centre, two licensed tissue establishments and four fertility clinics. There will be some minor administrative costs for establishments in Great Britain moving blood, organs, tissues and cells to Northern Ireland.

Legislative competence for the donation, processing and use in treatment of human reproductive cells remains reserved to this Parliament. Competence in respect of all other human tissues, cells, blood and organs is devolved, and the relevant instruments are being made on a UK-wide basis with the consent of the devolved Administrations, for which I am grateful. There is work under way to put in place a common framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to support co-ordinated decision making in the future on the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells after the end of the transition period.

To conclude, these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is essential that they are made, to allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK has high standards for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells. These instruments ensure that the UK will continue to work to those high standards after the end of the transition period and that blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to move around the UK from 1 January 2021. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

Care Quality Commission: Deaths in Mental Health Facilities

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 16th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call James Cartlidge, I have a statement to read.

I should inform the House that I have been advised that the Health and Safety Executive has commenced criminal proceedings against Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust relating to deaths in mental health care facilities from October 2004 to April 2015. Therefore, although the case that the hon. Member wishes to speak to is not sub judice, that trust’s management of the physical environment of mental health wards is sub judice, and reference should not be made to those proceedings in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of his debate, and I remind any other Member participating in the debate to be equally mindful of the sub judice resolution and matters still before the courts.