Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I shall be happy to meet the hon. Member to look into that case, because I feel strongly about the importance of ensuring that everyone has access to good, if not outstanding, care in care homes.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

4. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of increasing the affordability of sun protection products on levels of skin cancer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)]

Last month was melanoma month and skin cancer month, and people are increasingly aware of the risks of excessive sun exposure without protection. Through the energy price guarantee and our direct support for vulnerable households, we have provided cost of living help worth, on average, £3,300 per household.

[Richard Thomson]

Since the early 1990s cases of skin cancer have doubled, with nearly 16,000 new cases diagnosed each year leading to 2,300 avoidable deaths annually. If some products were more affordable, more of our constituents might be able to use them and bring those numbers down. Will the ministerial team make representations to their Treasury colleagues about the Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax) Bill, a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) which would remove VAT from some sun protection products, so that we can start to make an impact on those appalling figures?

[Neil O’Brien]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, tax matters are for the Treasury, but we are absolutely committed to providing cost of living support. By the end of June the Government will have covered nearly half a typical household’s energy bill since October, so we are providing one of the most generous packages in Europe.

Oral Answers

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this place. Our priority is always to ensure that children and adults with a learning disability and autistic people receive high-quality care. More than 2,000 people—children and adults—are still waiting to be discharged from in-patient facilities but that is a reduction of 30% and we are making progress. I am meeting individual integrated care boards—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Minister would like to listen to this. I am meeting individual ICBs to go through their patients who are waiting to be discharged to see what more support we can give to make that happen as quickly as possible.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Last year the Scottish Government announced £2 million-worth of funding and help for health boards to deliver health checks for all people with learning disabilities so that any health issues could be identified and treated as quickly as possible. What plans do the UK Government have to do similar across England?

[Maria Caulfield]

We also ensure that those eligible for safe and wellbeing reviews get one. Last year about 87% of those who were eligible did so.

Covid-19 Update

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. I agree with his words. It is important that all rich countries do everything they can to support the donation of vaccines to developing countries. I set out earlier what the UK has done, and we can be proud of that, but we need other countries to step up. In the G7 meeting I chaired earlier today with Health Ministers, we all agreed on the importance of this, and about redoubling efforts to make sure that all commitments are met.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I add my own thanks for the work that the NHS does and continues to do in all parts of these islands to keep us all healthy and safe. The emergence of omicron, including the six cases in Scotland, along with the evidence of community transmission, shows that this is absolutely no time to be complacent. For all the measures being taken at the border, with day two PCR testing, we risk missing a number of cases as they cross the border because of the incubation period. Surely a more effective approach would be to introduce day eight PCR testing, accompanied by eight days of isolation—and surely it would be better to do that now, than to be bounced into doing that by events further down the line.

Secondly, the Secretary of State issues a call for us all to work together, and I am sure we all wish to be able to do that, but does he share my disappointment that when the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales today called for a Cobra meeting to be convened, that possibility appeared to have been dismissed out of hand already? Will the Secretary of State prevail on the Prime Minister to convene and attend an urgent Cobra meeting involving all four nations, so that people might be persuaded that he is on top of this development, as we would all expect him to be?

Finally, does the Secretary of State agree with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the Chair of the Select Committee and me that the emergence of this variant shows that none of us is safe until all of us are safe? However much is being done, and however much the UK has done to date, more still needs to be done to achieve as close to 100% global vaccination as possible, including through the vaccination programmes we are in, and by increasing global vaccine production and overcoming the barriers that patent law might place in the way of our achieving that.

[Sajid Javid]

First, on the hon. Gentleman’s question on day two testing, we believe that the day two testing requirement for international travel is the proportionate response. He will know that it applies to all arrivals to the UK, and that the individual would have to self-isolate until they got a negative test result, and I think that is the right response.

In terms of meetings and the UK nations working together, that has been one of the successes of the UK’s response to the pandemic. The way that nations across the UK have worked together, especially on vaccines, testing, surveillance and antivirals, shows that we are stronger together.

Automated External Defibrillators: Public Access

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call Richard Thomson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I am the Front-Bench spokesperson, Mr Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I do apologise—my mistake. In that case, your able replacement is Stuart C. McDonald.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I hope I am not being flippant or not paying due respect to the seriousness of the subject when I say that I almost needed an AED when I heard my name being called early.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not only on securing the debate, but on his long and distinguished involvement in many measures in this House to advance the cause of expanding the provision of public defibrillators. He is involved with a private Member’s Bill that had run into the procedural buffers, for which he has picked up the baton. I know he has had positive dialogue with the Government, and I very much hope to see that Bill hit the statute book, by whatever means. It could bring real and tangible benefits to so many individuals and families, all across these islands.

Globally, cardiac arrests claim more lives than colorectal cancer, influenza, pneumonia, car accidents, HIV, firearms deaths and house fires combined. In the UK, that translates to around 30,000 people each year losing their lives through experiencing cardiac arrest. Sadly, fewer than one in 10 of those who experience cardiac arrest survive. It is something that can happen to anyone, in any place, at any age, at any time, with little, if any, warning.

All the hon. Members who have spoken, whether through a substantive contribution or a knowledgeable intervention, have made this an excellent debate. We have heard many examples of how early, rapid intervention has either happily saved lives or tragically could have saved a life.

A range of actors help to achieve the best outcomes here that they possibly can. We have heard about the examples of first responders, and we are familiar with the role that our paramedics play. I am pleased to have heard so many Members talk about CPR knowledge. I encourage everyone watching this debate, either live or afterwards, or reading about it in Hansard or in the newspapers, to make time to learn how to perform CPR, if they have not already done so. It could really save a life.

We have heard about, and some of us saw, the tragic events that afflicted Christian Eriksen during the European championships. I was watching with my children, and it was awful having to explain what was very likely happening and not being able to give them, at that time, the happy ending that they wanted. I remember the relief at being able to tell them that he was alive and in hospital. The quick action of his team mates and the medical professionals at the stadium saved him.

I would like to give an example of a case a little bit closer to home, at my former place of study, the University of Stirling. In February 2016, 20-year-old student Finlay Richardson, a third year student, collapsed during lacrosse practice on the university’s training fields. Sports centre staff reacted quickly, realised what was happening and ran and got the sport centre’s defibrillator. They were able to apply it to him. He was taken to the Forth Valley Royal Hospital where I am pleased to say he made a full recovery. In fact, he went on to secure a first class honours degree from the university in environmental science. In both cases, what made the difference, on top of the fast response, was the rapid use and application of automated defibrillators.

Those are two good outcomes, but sadly most outcomes are not positive. The single most effective measure that we could take to improve the survival rate is to increase the coverage of automated defibrillators around the country combined with increasing people’s knowledge about how to perform CPR. In Scotland, over the last five years, the Save a Life Scotland partnership has equipped more than 640,000 people, about 11% of the Scottish population, with CPR skills. At the launch of Scotland’s inaugural out of hospital cardiac arrest strategy in 2015, only about one in 20 people in Scotland who experienced an out of hospital cardiac arrest survived. By 2020, that had risen to one in 10.

The updated strategy for 2021 to 2026 aims to double the number of people equipped with lifesaving CPR skills and make sure that more than 1 million people have them, and to give all school-aged children the opportunity to be equipped with CPR skills. Those measures contribute to the aim of increasing bystander CPR rates to 85% so that a defibrillator can be applied before the ambulance arrives in 20% of cardiac arrests, and it is hoped that they will increase survival rates from out of hospital cardiac arrests from 10% to 15%.

Importantly, some 80% of cardiac arrests occur in the home, but sadly public defibrillators are used in only about 8% of cases. That might be, as hon. Members have said, due to a lack of confidence in how to use them, a lack of understanding, or a lack of knowledge of the location on the part of the individuals or the emergency services. The British Heart Foundation’s The Circuit campaign will be vital in drawing together the information about that lifesaving equipment. We need to increase that rate by ensuring that the locations of automated defibrillators are known and by increasing the public’s knowledge of how to use them.

I am pleased to say that there was a big community effort in the village where I stay in 2019—it is a small community but close knit. The school held fundraising events to buy a defibrillator for the village; we actually now have two. In April 2019—I think, if Facebook has not let me down—we held a training event in the village hall to learn how to use it. We learned about the appropriate pace of heart massage and were told to perform it while imagining that the Bee Gees were singing “Stayin’ Alive” in our head to get the rhythm right—that seems a bit incongruous, but I will not argue with medical experts.

We also learned how to give artificial respiration. The training was a great success in bringing the community together and in ensuring that, if the worst happened in our community, whether to someone who stays, is visiting or is passing through, there is a cohort of people who should be able to make a positive intervention and increase the chance of survival of anyone unfortunate enough to be in that situation.

I welcome the consensus in the Chamber and the Bill of the hon. Member for Strangford. The private sector has been incredibly accommodating and willing to host defibrillators and ensure that they are maintained, but some of our buildings with the highest footfall, particularly in rural areas, are the public ones. It is important to increase that coverage and do all that we reasonably can, through persuasion or by mandating, to ensure that those lifesaving pieces of tech are in place in our public spaces. I am keen to leave as much time as I can for the hon. Gentleman to sum up, so I will conclude by saying that this has been an excellent debate and I look forward to seeing how the House can come together to advance our shared objectives in future.

Covid-19: Contracts and Public Inquiry

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

As a comprehensive schoolboy, that privilege really runs right through me! However, let us be serious. First, let me say that we are dealing with a subject that has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. Millions of people around the world have died from a disease that nobody had even heard of, because it probably did not exist, two years ago. In that short time, we have had to do things, in the developed world and across all of the world, including in this country, that nobody would ever have dreamed of. We had to react very quickly to those things.

It is worth taking a step back to where we were, because short memories do not serve us well for the future. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), at that time several people were coming to MPs, from all over, with suggestions, and not to make a quick buck; a lot of them answered the call to help out in the crisis the country and the world were in—one that not only affected this country, but created a worldwide shortage of the very equipment and supplies that the world needed. Of course, what has come out of this pandemic is a look at the global supply chains and how they have to change, and that is tearing up the convention that has existed for many decades across many parts of the world. It took the crisis to say, “When we stretch out your supply chains like that in a world crisis, they are not going to work in the best way possible.” The pressure for personal protective equipment was enormous.

Again, I make the point about the letter that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which covered two aspects. First, it said, “All these people are offering you PPE. Why haven’t you bought it? Why are you taking so long to buy it?” That is there in black and white, in an official letter sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The letter then listed other companies that had come to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and said that they could supply things; as I said before, there were football agents, historical clothing companies, events companies and private legal practices in Birmingham. I am not saying that in a sense of mockery; I am saying that to make the point that Members of Parliament from all parties—from across the House—received several emails and representations from those trying to supply PPE to deal with the crisis. It was the responsibility of Members of Parliament to pass those emails and those contacts into the system to see what would happen.

I equally understand that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a frustration about the length of time it was taking for those contracts to be awarded, because we were all desperately trying to solve a problem that the world was facing to get PPE to where it needed to be. Of course we can name contracts that went wrong. We can do that in any walk of life and for any contract. It does not mean there was an endemic failure. Things were happening in a very short space of time and certain procurements did not meet the standards, but the last figure I heard showed they amounted to less than 1% of all the PPE that was procured. That is not a bad hit rate when there was not time to fill in the paperwork.

It is important that we bring these issues out in these debates, but why we do that is being lost in this one. There are, quite rightly, calls for an inquiry, but do we want it so that the country can learn, move forward and understand how to tackle things in the future, or is it for cheap political points? What I have heard so far is, pretty much, “If we had independence, we wouldn’t have any problems.” From almost the first sentence that came out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) there was the argument for independence, and it has gone on and on. We have heard, “If Scotland was independent, it would be different.” Well, it would not be that different, because Scotland would not be in the EU and it would not have had a chance to take part in the UK-wide procurement that supplied the vaccine programme. Let us not forget that the British armed forces have also contributed a huge amount to the fight against the pandemic. There has been a UK-wide force—the strength of this Union—delivering for every adult in the country. It does no service at all to try to make what has happened in the last 18 months into an argument about independence. It should stop this afternoon.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Since the right hon. Member has taken us on to the Union, why did the Government seek to poll Scottish attitudes to it if its benefits were so self-evident throughout? Why were public funds that were intended for covid procurement misdirected to pay for that polling?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I despair. I literally just said that we are supposed to be examining the procurement of PPE and when the inquiry comes, and yet we go back to those allegations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will once again give the answers that were given previously. Stop it! Grow up! The reality is that we are dealing with an issue that has caused the deaths of millions of people across the world, including tens of thousands of people in this country. Today we need to explore where things went wrong—that is important —why the inquiry should wait and how it should take place.

By profession I am a mechanical engineer and, as somebody who flies around the world, I have an interest—a morbid interest, I suppose—in the programme “Air Crash Investigation”, which my wife will not watch under any circumstances, given her fear of flying. Aircraft safety has improved immensely in the past decades, and that is because there is a no-blame culture. That ties straight in with the report published this week by the Health and Social Care Committee on deaths in natal care and having a no-blame culture. We may want to get to the analysis of what went wrong and why it went wrong, but we cannot do that from a position of wondering, “Am I covering my political back? Am I covering my professional back? Can I have an honest conversation?”

We have to understand what went wrong. Things did go wrong. There cannot be a single person in the Chamber or indeed across the country who felt that everything went really well and was fine. Nobody says that. Nobody believes that. It is self-evidently not true that everything went fine. We do have to learn lessons, and it is important that we learn them though the matrix of what went wrong. As we have said, plenty of preparation was done for a flu pandemic, but that turned out not to be able to handle this pandemic. It is therefore important that we analyse the pressures caused by different diseases that can come forward. [Interruption.] I heard things from a sedentary position, but I did not notice what was said.

Ultimately, we have not had any sense of the SNP taking responsibility where they have responsibility—indeed, it was noticeable that the leader of the SNP just dismissed the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), mocked it and tried to put the blame back on the UK Government. Quite simply, if people are really taking notice of this debate this afternoon, they will think that it needs to be a lot more mature and serious than it has been so far.

Covid Security at UK Borders

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

The covid-19 pandemic has heralded a challenging period for the aviation sector, and the new increased measures announced for the UK border last week will only make this situation more challenging for businesses and jobs in the weeks to come. There is a very clear and pressing need to increase the level of business support for aviation and aerospace companies to help them survive this pandemic. The Scottish Government have provided support to the sector within their available powers. However, the UK Government can and must do a lot more both in helping to strip out the fixed costs for the industry and in allowing the industry to invest and plan for the future.

My party has been consistent in calling for tough measures to be taken at the UK border in recent months. We now know that UK Ministers are planning to set up a hotel quarantine scheme for people arriving in the UK from 30 red list countries, yet the Home Office has still to provide full detail of the criteria that will be used either to add countries to or to remove them from its list, or of how passengers can be prevented from flying into the UK via a third country to get round the quarantine requirement. This matters. Last May, Sir Patrick Vallance told the Health and Social Care Committee:

“One of the things that looks clear is that early in March the UK got many different imports of virus from many different places”.

All too often throughout the pandemic, the UK Government have been susceptible to magical thinking, taking the path of least resistance only to pay a much heavier price later. With mutations in the virus, there are huge dangers inherent in only partially closing the door, as the UK Government propose. We desperately need to get ahead of this virus with supervised quarantine to allow the vaccination programme to do its job of saving lives. The lesson that we should have learned through this pandemic is that the best way to save lives and to protect jobs is to act early and to act decisively. The SNP has a strong preference in that regard for our having quarantine rules that work right across the UK.

The Scottish Government cannot unilaterally close the border, but believe that a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine is required. We are acutely aware that any measures taken that are significantly out of line with the rest of the UK might risk displacing travel to other airports, so we very strongly take a four-nations approach. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the UK Government have so far failed to go far enough in closing the door to further infections from overseas, and if the UK Government will not act, then the Scottish Government must. I look forward to hearing tomorrow about the tougher supervised quarantine measures that we judge are necessary to protect public health in Scotland. As so often in the past, where the Scottish Government have led, the UK Government eventually follow. I hope that, in the interests of us all, they are not far behind in doing so.

Covid-19

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Allow me to begin my remarks by sharing the sentiments that have already been expressed about our gratitude to everyone who is currently working to keep us safe and comfortable in our homes, whether that is the NHS workers toiling tirelessly or those in the care sector or, as we have heard, the posties. I thank everyone who is keeping the wheels of society turning to make sure that our lives can go on as normally as possible in what have been deeply abnormal times.

The first vaccinations have taken place in Scotland in care homes this week, which is a tremendous source of optimism. The first care home resident in Scotland to receive the vaccine was 90-year-old Annie Innes. Annie worked as a carer herself for over 14 years and has been living in the Abercorn House care home in Hamilton for six months. Out of much darkness over the last few months, that gives us at least a glimmer of hope—not just that we will be able to see our relatives in care home settings again, but, more generally, that normality is hopefully not too far away.

I would like personally to thank everyone who has been involved in the roll-out of the vaccination programme. If anything gives us hope, it is this. I absolutely concur with all that has been said: when the vaccine is available, please, please, please get it. People should know that it is not just about keeping themselves safe; it is about keeping everybody around them safe as well. This is what will get us through this. There are obviously huge logistical challenges involved in distributing the Pfizer vaccine. It will be an extremely challenging task, but it will give us an additional layer of protection that none of us has had until now.

As more vaccines and different variants of vaccines become available over the coming months, it is the intention of the Scottish Government—in line with advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—to continue with the roll-out, initially focusing on care homes, for older adults and carers, but also rolling out to other vulnerable adults, and, gradually, to the wider adult population. It is to be hoped that the roll-out marks the beginning of the end, but it certainly cannot be the end of our collective caution. We all still need to do all we can to keep our loved ones safe, whether that is through restricting our unnecessary contact with others or just facing facts: wearing face coverings; avoiding crowded places; maintaining appropriate hygiene and social distancing; and ensuring that we self-isolate and book a test if we have symptoms. We all need to continue to observe that public health advice.

In Scotland, the R number is now currently estimated to be between 0.7 and 0.9, which is confirmation that some of the very tough decisions that have had to be taken over the last few weeks have been having the desired effect. As a result, some 16 local authority areas have been able to reduce from level 3 to level 2, but there is a real need to remain vigilant throughout and not let our guard down, even as the Christmas period comes.

I draw particular attention to one allocation of resource that has taken place in Scotland that I hope the UK Government might take on board: a payment of £500 that is available to those who are on a low income and who have to self-isolate. The Scottish Government are going to maintain that, but it does mean that anyone who is required to self-isolate is not placed under any financial pressures to not do the right thing. From the position we occupy, it can sometimes be easy to miss the very real day-to-day pressures that people face, such as choosing between doing the right thing and doing what they need to do to support their families. If we take that problem away from them with a small amount like that, it can make all the difference—not just to those families, but to curtailing the spread of the virus.

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in Scotland announced details of how a further £2.2 billion of support will be allocated. It includes an additional £600 million for the health and social care sector, wider public health initiatives and welfare support, a £500 bonus for health and social care workers, and funding for a winter plan for social protection that helps people to pay for food, heating, warm clothing and shelter. Second in that package is support for business and the wider economy, including funding for local business support packages, a hardship fund for the newly self-employed who have not received support through any other means, and local authority discretionary business funding. A further £500 million is there to support transport services, and to cover pandemic-related income shortfalls in organisations such as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland. There is £15 million for the second part of that newly self-employed hardship fund, and £15 million to support the wedding sector and its supply chain, including photographers.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) mentioned hospitality. All aspects of the hospitality industry are crucial. It is not just the jobs done and the employment created, but everything else in the supply chain: the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Those are the businesses we need to and can support through the financial support we make available. Those grant schemes, and many more that I do not have time to go into, will be available for application from January.

The Treasury made it very clear that the funding that has come to Scotland is to cover the period up until March, which means that the Scottish Government have held back £300 million. I can understand that people might be frustrated about that. Every year, covid or not, we go through the ritualised pantomime of Opposition politicians saying, “Why didn’t you spend all your money?” Frankly, the Scottish Government have to operate within a fixed budget. They have no borrowing powers. If they had borrowing powers, they might not need hold that money back and those numbers could be increased to other areas where support has not been able to be forthcoming.

I would add at this juncture that the £300 million that has been held back also has to cover any contingencies arising from anything that may or may not be decided in terms of the ongoing Brexit negotiations. It would be remiss of me not to say at this point that, with just over a fortnight to go until the end of the transition period, it is astonishing that we still do not know what it is we are supposed to be preparing for.

A no-deal Brexit would pose a very, very significant threat indeed to the NHS as it prepares to face the most challenging spell of the year throughout the winter. That is when the NHS is under its greatest strain and when demand on resources is at its greatest. To couple that with the impact of a no-deal Brexit would be an act of wanton recklessness.

Whether it is a low deal or a no deal, one of the main concerns for the NHS must be to ensure that sufficient drugs and medical equipment continue to arrive in the UK throughout the winter. The Tories’ extreme Brexit plans are posing a threat to that, with many experts and industry leaders acknowledging the disruption at the borders that will be the effect of leaving the single market and customs union without a deal. The Government’s own documents, which reached the press, suggested that the flow of medicines could initially be reduced to 60% to 80% over that initial three-month spell. I can only imagine the anxiety of families reliant on medicines for vulnerable children and other vulnerable family members not having the certainty and security that the supply can be maintained over the weeks and months ahead.

Many people will be facing a lonely Christmas this year, notwithstanding any seasonal relaxation of travel restrictions, but how much more difficult must it be for those who are facing that Christmas without financial support to put food on the table, to keep heating on, electricity in the meter and to keep their family warm? I again make the plea that there are so many people who have been excluded from the Government’s financial response that the Government need to look at that again.

In conclusion, I observe that the rise in the rates of infection in London and the south-east shows just how easily the virus can spread anywhere. It is a cautionary warning that we need to maintain our guard. The vaccine gives us hope, but it is the solidarity that has been shown between individuals, communities and their families which has sustained us in the months past, and which will continue to sustain us in the months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment for (a) health, (b) social care and (c) other frontline services during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment for (a) health, (b) social care and (c) other frontline services during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

We have a four-month stockpile of all covid-critical PPE in place. Thanks must go to the tremendous contribution from UK manufacturers, including Honeywell in Motherwell in Scotland, which now meet 70% of our PPE needs. We have distributed 4.7 billion items, ensuring health and care providers and others have access to the critical protective equipment that they need to help keep everyone safe.

[Richard Thomson]

According to Treasury figures, the UK Government have spent £15 billion to date on PPE contracts, and the majority to date have been awarded without open tendering, often to those with connections to the governing party or to companies with no PPE experience at all. Does the Minister consider it is acceptable that, instead of that resource being used to protect frontline healthcare staff, so much of it has been squandered on millions of items that are absolutely unusable because they do not meet NHS standards, and how does she propose to restore this Government’s reputation for competence, probity and openness in the tendering process?

[Jo Churchill]

The global pandemic presented us with unprecedented challenges in securing the volumes of PPE required. We moved swiftly in order to make sure that we kept people safe. We procured goods and services, and worked with extreme urgency in accordance with procurement rules and Cabinet Office guidance. All offers were prioritised based on volume price, clinical acceptability and lead time. I am happy to reiterate: we have four months’ supply.

Covid-19

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I thank all those who are working at present to keep us safe and comfortable, offer my condolences to all who have lost loved ones, and echo everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said about the looming economic threat that is facing the north-east of Scotland.

Over the course of the past few weeks, I have met a number of representatives of businesses in my constituency and further afield, particularly in the hospitality sector. Their frustration at the need for continued restrictions is entirely understandable and understood. Walking through the streets of London this week, I have been absolutely struck by the number of closed bars, restaurants and shops, serving as a stark warning of what we face when the response to rising infections from this virus is inadequate to the circumstances.

In many debates over the course of the past few months, I have highlighted the shortcomings of the UK’s fiscal framework with regard to the devolved Administrations—the lack of borrowing powers and the wait for Barnett figures to trickle through. Last week we also saw the fiasco of whether or not the furlough scheme would apply, with Government Ministers seeming to disagree with one another on that. The last-minute furlough extension by the Chancellor, while welcome, also created huge uncertainty and has led to many people losing their jobs who did not need to if only he had been more open about his intentions and not been left to be bounced into it at the last minute.

In terms of the response, particularly for the hospitality sector, we need the reduced VAT rate for tourism to continue, and non-domestic rates to continue at their current zero level. Through Barnett, we need to see that commitment in England so that it can be followed through elsewhere in the UK.

That still leaves 3 million excluded but in the final seconds that I have, I will focus not on those who are excluded, but on those who are conspicuously included—those appointed to positions without open recruitment processes and those who are awarded contracts without following open procurement processes. We are entitled to have assurances that the best people are shaping our responses—absolutely we do—but surely we are also entitled to the assurance that the decisions taken are justified for their impact, effectiveness and public health benefits to the many and not just for the financial benefit to the few. Throughout this crisis, under the cover of urgency, too many contracts have been awarded at too high a price that have run into too many problems and benefited too many people who are too close to the centre of power. That cannot and must not continue.

Covid-19 Update

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The money that we are proposing, and put on the table for Greater Manchester, is exactly the same as the amount that was agreed with the leadership of Liverpool and of Lancashire. There is support there to help people through what are—the hon. Lady is quite right—very difficult times. I hope that we can resolve this, but we needed to act after 10 days, with infections still going up. It was our duty to act, even though we could not yet get the agreement of the local leaders, but I hope that that will come.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

One of the ways in which we can hope to pick a path out of this crisis is with improved and faster testing. The Health and Social Care Secretary and the Prime Minister have spoken in past days about new testing technologies being piloted with NHS staff. If that technology is found to be effective, what is the right hon. Gentleman’s timeline for rolling that testing out to wider groups, and will those tests contribute to the half a million daily tests that the Government say will be conducted by the end of the month?

[Matt Hancock]

The answer is yes and yes. They will be there to benefit everyone across the whole United Kingdom.