Medicinal Cannabis

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We do have that overwhelming body of observed evidence of the efficacy of cannabis oil. I have seen at first hand the difference that medicinal cannabis has made to Murray Gray’s life—it has transformed his life. When his mum, Karen, first came to see me, he was a very unwell wee boy who was, as I mentioned, constantly in and out of hospital with dozens of seizures a day, and his family were worried that they could lose him. Since being prescribed cannabis oil, he is seizure-free and a happy youngster who plays football with his dad. When he came to visit me in my office, he explained everything I have ever need to know about dinosaurs. It was a joy to see him so happy. The medication has given him a life that he may not otherwise have had.

It is time for the Health Secretary—just as he did when he was Home Secretary—and his team to intervene to make the case that the medical profession should put its shoulder to the wheel. It is time to close the huge gulf between what the Government promised—and, I believe, wanted—and what has been delivered.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is the best-placed person to move the debate forward, because he was the one in government in the Home Office who changed the law. Does the hon. Member agree that we need action now?

[Christine Jardine]

I agree 100% with the hon. Lady that we need action now—it is actually overdue—and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is the very person who can give us what we need.

Because this is not a political football kicked between party politicians—it never has been and never should be; we have always resisted that—a little over a year ago, more than 100 MPs across the House from the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and Labour and Green parties wrote to the former Health Secretary to demand action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning]

I completely agree on the medical profession and know exactly where the Home Office stood when I was at the Department. I would love to say that the whole of the Home Office and my civil servants in the narcotics part of it were thrilled by what I said in Westminster Hall all those years ago, but I can assure colleagues that they certainly were not, to say the least; fortunately, I had covered my back with the Home Secretary.

We need to move on from this, however. This is not about reform of the 1971 Act. It is about whether there is a group of children who we know get benefit from this, and whether, as we all know from our constituency postbags, there are other conditions that could also benefit from this type of oil with a THC product in it. That is where we are struggling.

We need to roll back this debate and talk, as I did at the start of my speech, about children—children who deserve the best possible start in life and just happen to have been born with a medical condition that the medical profession, in its infinite and great wisdom, has not quite got an answer for. This product is part of the answer, although it only alleviates the condition. As parents have said to me on many occasions, it does not take away the condition but it does let the children live a life as close to normality as possible; it is not normal, because it involves dropping oil on a little boy or girl’s tongue on a daily basis, but it is as normal as we can get.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

It was a pleasure to serve with the right hon. Gentleman as co-chair of the all-party group on medical cannabis under prescription. On the point he makes about children, we have Bailey Williams in Cardiff, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and that case highlights that these children are no longer classified as children after four years; they become adults. Bailey Williams is now 18, and the question arises of how things will change for him in a different health system with different rights. What would the right hon. Gentleman say on that?

[Sir Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady was a brilliant co-chair with me for all those years; we agreed on most things even though there is a tiny number of things we do not agree on. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have a constituent who has now turned 18, although it is not the THC but another medical component that particularly helps her. People come out of the care of one part of the health service and there is a little bit of a transition period but there is very little research on the evidential base going forward, and we need to do that research.

Let me touch for a second on what has been said to me by senior medical people in the Department of Health and Social Care. They said, “We need to do trials, Mike. We need to use placebos. We need to find out whether this actually works or whether it doesn’t work.” What parent on this planet is going to take their child off a medication that actually works, with the risk that they may get a placebo, have a seizure and die? Is that where we are in the 21st century, really and truly?

We had a statement earlier from the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). We are a world leader in doing medical things. We have done things in this country around the vaccines that no one dreamed possible, yet we are talking about giving placebos—and those people were serious. I can tell the House that the parents were very serious, too. I cannot repeat some of the comments I got from some of the parents, but they quite rightly said—I will speak politely on their behalf—“Not in a million years.” Let us put it in those terms.

I know that the Minister will do her level best, but this is not about the Government taking over Epidiolex. Yes, they need to pay for research—I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) about that—and research in this area could change the whole way that pain is addressed and perhaps get us away from using so many opioids, but this is actually just about having trust in the expert who has written the prescription for a child who may well die if he does not get that oil with the THC component on prescription.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I am sorry for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again. The NHS keeps asking experts, but those experts are not experts in medical cannabis; they are experts in the condition of epilepsy but have no insight into that. Where is the foresight and vision to help these children with intractable epilepsy?

[Sir Mike Penning]

I alluded earlier to the narrow-mindedness of people who have taken an oath to protect people and protect children. No one, I would have thought, goes into the medical profession to hurt people, but at the end of the day, we have a group of children—not thousands, but a small group—whose parents are crying out, “Please listen to my specialist. Please listen to me, as a parent trying to save my child’s life.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is exactly how I feel, and I think it is exactly how we all feel as elected representatives on behalf of our constituents. I can well recall the bad old days of the pressure that was on the family: the pressure on the parents, the pressure on the child and the pressure on their friends, with all the multiple issues they had to address. There is an evidential base. It is as clear as a bell. I can see it in that wee girl Sophia. I can see it in the improvement that she has quite clearly made. That is why I totally support this product. I believe the evidential base is overwhelming. I can vouch for that, as I see that lovely wee girl and the improvements she has had.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) sent me a letter, which I will record for Hansard if I can, written by his constituent, a fellow called Robin Emerson, whose daughter is a wee girl called Jorja. There is also an evidential base in her improvement. My hon. Friend very kindly gave me a copy of the letter last week, which refers to

“an important intervention to enable a number of children suffering with epilepsy to receive a treatment containing Cannabidiol (CBD) and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This has made a crucial difference to their quality of life over the past two years”.

In some cases, quite honestly Mr Speaker, I believe they save lives. They definitely do. In my heart I believe that, which is why I am here tonight to speak on this matter. I feel it is so important.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Does he agree that there is no other medical intervention suitable for these children? It is intractable epilepsy. Nothing else has been found to give them that quality of life. Does he agree that we have to move forward in this debate?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we do have to move forward, and that is the message from us all in the Chamber tonight. I know that Robin, on behalf of Jorja, and Darren and Danielle, on behalf of Sophia, tried almost every other thing that they could before they came to medicinal cannabis, and they have seen the difference almost right away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I was delighted to take that intervention from my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: this is about science and technology. It is about finding a route to a Government who can deliver policy based on evidence. We have heard very clearly why randomised controlled trials and placebos are not going to work in this case and are a completely inappropriate way of providing proof, and that there is a vast amount of observed evidence out there. What we need to do is understand the context. The case is unanswerable for these epileptic children—of course it is, and of course their treatment should be should be paid for privately if it cannot be provided by the NHS because all these barriers have appeared—but behind them sit a vast number of other people who are not being served by our system of developing drugs that will work for their conditions.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Gentleman has made some very valid points about the wider issue of drug reform, and I agree with much of what he has said. As he well knows, when I first came to the House the late Paul Flynn, then Member of Parliament for Newport West, was a doughty campaigner for medicinal cannabis. I had many conversations with him about it, and much account was taken of what he said. He advanced valid arguments about people with multiple sclerosis, many of whom were our constituents, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman too has a genuine argument in that regard. Tonight, however, we are focusing on the cost of medicinal cannabis to end the pain of epileptic children, and our real ask of the Government is a fund to provide them with money immediately, although we will work together on the wider debate.

[Crispin Blunt]

I wholly agree with the hon. Lady, whose leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medical cannabis under prescription, along with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, adds to the whole discussion and illuminates the fact that our drugs policy is in a serious state of strife. It is not based on evidence, and we have to drag it in that direction. Behind the hon. Lady sits my friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), with whom I have the honour of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform. We took over from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and from Paul Flynn. My objective, as the first Conservative to take his place, was to drag this conversation into the mainstream, which is where it belongs.

However, we need to remember just what got this over the line in the first place. The Dingley family behaved perfectly within the rules. They made applications and everything else, and indeed we had an urgent question on the subject. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead interrogating the then Policing Minister, who had taken on the responsibility, about when this was going to happen, particularly for Billy Caldwell.

What got this over the line, however, was the fact that Bill Caldwell’s mum, Charlotte, was brave enough to obtain the medicine in north America, present it to customs and have it confiscated. Her son was then hospitalised and was fitting, and within three days the overseeing consultant was on the steps of the hospital saying, “I do not care about what is going on here; it is unbelievably cruel to take a medicine that works away from a child.” The following day, the then Home Secretary—now, wonderfully, the Health and Social Care Secretary: what a brilliant repositioning that is—authorised the return of Billy’s medicine, or at least some of it, from customs so that he could receive his treatment.

[Crispin Blunt]

This is where we come to the cost, to which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) drew my attention. In order to get Alfie Dingley’s prescription over the line, it would have taken £5,000 for the person who was going to make the application, who happened to be on holiday in the Galapagos Islands and who then had to be interviewed by Home Office officials before he was allowed to make the application; £5,000 for the pharmacy to get a licence to bring it in; £5,000 for the pharmacy then to hand it out to the doctor; and then £5,000 for the licence for the prescribing doctor. I mean, I ask you! It might have been possible to pay in that case, but behind the case of Alfie Dingley, there is not just a score of epileptic children.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

On that point, I made two journeys to The Hague with families—out of my own pocket, which was absolutely fine; it was not funded by anybody—because they needed the support to go over and get those medicines. They do not have the extra money and they do not have the time, which is why we stand by them and why we have to help them.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Lady has behaved as the best of constituency MPs would. Indeed, I am sure that all of us, faced with the opportunity to help people in that way, would want to do so.

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, despite the legalisation in November 2018, the system remains broken. It remains broken in respect not only of cannabis but of the psychedelics. A wave of interest came into medicine as a result of cannabis; it came from North America where a significant amount of investor money was going into the new industry because people could see the opportunities that were available there. However, we could not do the research here because it was a schedule 1 drug, and hardly any universities had a schedule 1 licence to do that research. The level of oversight was far greater than that for heroin, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said, so it is no wonder that there has been almost no research on all this down the decades.

As far as I can see from the 1960s, the psychedelics got shoved into that group as well because pop stars used them. Then, in 2008, we managed to dismiss the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs because he had the presumption to say that riding a horse was a damn sight more dangerous than MDMA. That is what we do to the scientists who produce the evidence: we refuse to listen to the evidence because it will be politically inconvenient and subject to misrepresentation in the media. We owe our constituents way more than that, and it would be remiss of us if we do not examine this whole area on the evidence. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to it.

I have spoken about MS, and the hon. Member for South Antrim and others have referred to pain relief. As an alternative to opiate-based medicines, given all the difficulties of the opiate crisis in the United States, cannabis-based medicines offer a serious group of advantages if they can be deployed properly. Meanwhile the psychedelics still sit in schedule 1, making research incredibly difficult and expensive.

Let us consider depression, addiction and trauma. Of the veterans who have come back from their service in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, 7,500 have post-traumatic stress disorder, about a third of whom are beyond treatment within the current treatments available. However, the evidence is that the prescribed and overseen use of psychedelics can get to the relevant part of the brain and enable the psychotherapy to take hold and teach people to acquire the tools with which to manage and deal with their trauma. That can also work for depression and addiction. We are potentially talking about millions of people, if we enable the research to happen. Are we a country that will be on the frontline of bioscience? Are we serious? There is an opportunity for our pharmaceutical industry to get this to scale, and millions of people can be helped.

A huge cost is currently imposed on our economy by these medical conditions, so surely it makes sense to enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as Minister for medicines, to draw on evidence-based advice. Sitting alongside the MHRA ought to be some kind of cannabis authority, as has been done in Denmark, Holland and Germany, for Ministers to get the advice they need to be able to advance policy confidently, and it needs to be within a wider office for drug control that engages all the relevant Departments. A Department of Health and Social Care lead would be good, but a Cabinet Office lead that brings together everyone who has an interest in this area would be a fine thing, too.

[Crispin Blunt]

I largely agree with my hon. Friend, apart from on the views he imputed to me. He decided what my views are on the legalisation of drugs, but I simply want policy based on evidence.

All I will say is that the current situation is a catastrophe, not just here but around the world. It is the basic reason why we were run out of Helmand province. The farmers around Didcot were growing poppies for the legal medical morphine market, but we did not allow the farmers in Helmand to grow poppies, so they were driven into the heroin market. We then decided to go and burn their crops, reducing them to penury. And we wonder why they changed sides and were against us. We were run out of Helmand, even with 20,000 American troops coming to the aid of our soldiers.

This issue permeates the world. It is a global issue. We simply need to proceed on the basis of the evidence, so we need to create the institutions that can give us that evidence. There should be an office for drug control, promoting all the science and bioscience of which this country should be capable, within which ought to be a cannabis authority of some kind that could give the Minister and her colleagues the advice they need. The opportunity for the Department of Health and Social Care is huge, and the opportunity for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in sponsoring our science is enormous. The opportunity for the Treasury is not exactly minuscule either, and there is an opportunity for the Home Office to have a policy that contributes to the whole of the public interest, not just a very narrow part of it that has done so much damage. The policy of preventing things from happening has been in the lead in the drugs policy area, so this proposal is long overdue.

I beg the Minister to have this discussion with me and the think-tank I have established. I have no financial interest to declare, as I take nothing from the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group. I set it up to give me research and scientific evidence on which to help advance these arguments. I am passionate about this issue, and it is one of the issues on which I wish to use my remaining time in public life. Having seen what I have seen as Prisons Minister and in my own experience, I know the opportunities are as great as the opportunity to end the terrible mess of our wider drugs policy. If we can grasp the science opportunity, the medical opportunity follows. There would be a huge advantage for patients in the United Kingdom.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The work the hon. Gentleman does with his think-tank is brilliant. How much would this cost? How much does he think the Government need to put aside—we are talking about the cost of medicinal cannabis—to reform policy? Are there any figures? Are there any plans to put that in place?

[Crispin Blunt]

The machinery of government changes can be made at very little cost. This is about getting the right advisers and the machinery of government advice. Obviously, we would then have to recruit the people into the cannabis authority who understand the issue, and allow them the authority and space to be able to advise Ministers and the office of drug control. However, the up-front cost would be minimal. The opportunities and the number of people we can really help by having far better drug provision in the UK are huge. All of us have a duty to engage properly with that and to be able to disaggregate all the issues and negative connotations associated with the use of cannabis and heroin. Let us focus on the evidence and get this conversation into the mainstream as a means by which we can make huge advances for our country. I look forward to the ongoing conversations with the Minister, who as the Minister for medicine could make a huge impact if she were able to deliver on this part of her agenda.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just jumped up quickly before you changed your mind! [Laughter.]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this debate, which has been great; we were looking forward to a 30-minute Adjournment debate, a battle through and a quick exchange of views, but because nobody cares that much about national insurance contributions amendments, we have been given this extra time. I will not take too much more, because a lot has been covered by the previous speaker and there is no point going over old ground. I would genuinely like to say that at 9.10 on a Monday evening there is nothing I would rather be doing on my birthday than fighting the cause of something I truly believe in.

On 19 March 2019, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that medical cannabis “would be made available”. If I had heard those words as the parent of a child who would have benefited, I would have been thinking that it was going to be made available. I would not be expecting to jump through hoops or to have to raise thousands of pounds to pay for it. My hopes would have been raised. A child with such a condition would, typically, have 30 seizures a day and so over 900 days we are talking about 27,000 seizures. If they had had medical cannabis, we could be talking about zero seizures. However, it will be made available some day. After this time, the general frustration in this Chamber is, “Why are we still talking about it?” We have said this a number of times in Westminster Hall, and here and there, and we know everything that has been said today.

I am genuinely glad that the Minister has informed us that we are now manufacturing some of these medicines here in the UK, as that is a big step forward. However, we are still reliant on private prescriptions and, as was pointed out earlier, the main provider of those is about to retire. Yet again, if I was a parent in that situation, would the sword of Damocles not be hanging over me? This is the same idea as what happened when we left the EU—we could not get the medicines in and we had to have an extension to January, to July and now to next year. That is a ticking timebomb hanging over those young lives that we just do not need to have there. The long and short of it is that people who cannot afford it or cannot raise the funds for it—during covid, raising funds for many a charitable cause has been incredibly difficult—simply go without. They go without and so there are 27,000 seizures because they have to go without a medicine that they know is available and know would do the job for their child. It should not be this way. In less time, we have developed, tested and rolled out a covid vaccine throughout the United Kingdom. The vaccine did not exist, it had to be tested, and we have done it. It concerns me that these kids are less of a priority.

What are the UK Government going to do? How will they finally going create a legal framework in which GPs are comfortable writing prescriptions for cannabis-based medical products? If we could do that, it would be a game-changer. I am not playing politics with this issue, but I have contacted the Scottish Government, and in Scotland if people get an NHS prescription, the Government will pay for it. The same thing has to apply down here, so let us facilitate that. Let us go to doctors, explain what it is we are asking them to do and give them the confidence to stand up and do it. If a senior clinician can do it, a GP can do it.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The point the hon. Gentleman is making is really interesting. With covid, we have seen so many families really struggle and their children have been hospitalised—we are talking about such vulnerable children—so his point is so valuable. I thank him for all his work on this issue because together, across party lines, we will take this issue forward.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I thank the hon. Lady very much. The point that this is very much a cross-party issue should not be missed. We are not going to split down party lines or fall out over this. We will fall out over other things—I am absolutely sure of that—but this issue has strong cross-party support. I look around the Chamber at the Members present and I know the different politics we have, yet we are united behind this cause. The Government should take real note of that. I know they have a working majority of 80 or so, but people in the Conservative party are rightly backing this issue.

I shall not keep the House any longer. I fully acknowledge that the past 20 months have been incredibly demanding for the Department of Health and Social Care. We all get that—we all appreciate what has been done during that time—but the time for talking is well and truly over and the time for action has well and truly arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Not no more, but I understand where his passion comes from.

I can also see in their places the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)—we have spoken about this matter—and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).

At the heart of this debate for me are Alfie; Billy; Eddie Braun, who was not mentioned; Murray; Jorja; Maya; Bailey Williams, mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower; Sophia; and others. It is about those children. I have personally met several of the families and heard at first hand how it feels not to be able to have anything more. To be honest, as a mum of four, I can say that sympathy feels a bit useless when it comes to a mother who, in some cases, can watch their child fit 100 times a day. They have explained to me the relief that applying Bedrolite under the tongue brings to their children. They have spoken about the financial challenges, but I would like to use the time available to go over some of the challenges that I am trying to wrestle with to get to a solution.

We have had an accordion debate tonight. Initially, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said that this debate was about access to NHS prescriptions. However, many others also spoke about how much this might benefit multiple sclerosis sufferers and those with chronic pain. Indeed, Lord Field in the other place has written to me on this subject and spoken about the relief of chronic pain that I think he himself gets from using a cannabis-based product. However, there does have to be an evidence base that is more than observational.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

There has been a lot of talk about randomised control trials this evening, and I understand the difficulty that the NHS has with this. We have had numerous meetings with NHS England and with pharmacists on this. The issue is that the RCTs are a no-goer. They are just a no-goer. I would never take my child off a drug if I knew that it could possibly kill them in order to enable the NHS to prescribe. We have to overcome that hurdle. I would like to see a push from the Minister to make that change happen. We have seen it with covid and we have seen it with the vaccine. What the NHS has done is incredible. I would really love to have the Minister onside to be able to push the NHS forward to change its mind over the RCTs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I agree that there are other medicines, but one of the challenges is how we treat people with ongoing needs as their conditions vary, if we do not have the ability to understand how the body is responding.

I will push on a little bit. Let me provide an update on Bedrocan oils from the Netherlands. As stated previously, the commercial agreement between Transvaal Apotheek and the UK special medicines manufacturer, Target Healthcare, is progressing. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Home Office are working with those companies to ensure that all regulatory standards for manufacturing these medicines in this country are met. We continue to work closely with the Dutch Government, Transvaal, the Home Office and the MHRA—which I have met with and which says it will look at the international evidence—to ensure continuity of supply until domestic production has been established. We have had movement; I can sense the frustration in the House tonight, but we are moving forward. I will continue to keep the House informed of progress.

On the main topic of the debate, it is undeniable that it is incredibly hard for many of the patients and their families. As many Members have said, the challenges have done nothing but worsen during the covid-19 pandemic. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when he was Home Secretary, changed the law to allow unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use to be prescribed by doctors on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. This removed legislative barriers to legitimate use as a medicine. However, there is still caution across specialists in their ability and willingness to prescribe. [Interruption.] Indeed. However, with respect, if the prescribing of these medicines by a clinical specialist was that seamless, we would have more of it, but we do not.

The whole thing comes back to the fact that clinicians want to rely on an evidence base, and that includes clinicians in Scotland. We recently received a letter from the Scottish Government, outlining that Dr Rose Marie Parr, former chief pharmaceutical officer, had chaired a teleconference with key paediatric neurologists from specialist centres. The clinicians had a clear and united view that, following the GMC and British Paediatric Neurology Association guidelines, they would be unwilling to prescribe CBPMs containing THC, including Bedrolite, until there is clearer, published evidence available following a clinical trial.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

rose—

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

All three Members rose at the same time. I will make my next point before I take interventions.

While the evidence base remains limited, I am sure that everybody, including clinicians in this place, will agree that decisions on whether to prescribe, as with any other medicine, have to remain clinical decisions. A doctor would not appreciate me in their consulting room telling them that they did not know their job as a doctor.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I would just like to point out to her that that is not the case. There are three NHS prescriptions. If the law was changed, why are there those three NHS prescriptions? Either these medicines are safe or they are not. They must be safe. I understand what she is saying about the clinicians, but let us look at the risk-benefit for the particular group of children we are talking about. We know that “First do no harm” is how our clinicians treat their patients, but they have to move forward. Hannah Deacon is a classic example. She is continuing to campaign because she sees the unfairness and injustice that Alfie has his prescription but other children do not. Please, Minister, help us to move this debate forward.

[Jo Churchill]

Hannah has said those exact words to me. That is why I say that we have to look at this in a selection of doable, achievable pieces, because it is not possible to look at it for every condition. We are talking about those children with refractory epilepsy, and trying to find solutions there is my main focus currently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning]

rose—

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

I will give way first to my right hon. Friend.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I have met clinicians, as well as the families. Like just about every other area of medicine, there is divergence in how they approach it. There are those who prescribe and those who do not. I have also spoken to Alfie’s general practitioner, who was very articulate in describing the benefits that Alfie saw from taking medicinal cannabis. However, it is still fundamentally the decision of the clinician who has the child as the patient. One thing that has been said to me is that it is important, as we try to move forward and do better, to ensure that private specialists also have conversations with those who are treating the children for other issues in their NHS care, because of contraindications and so on, as was referred to earlier.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has made a real point about there being a culture of fear within the NHS and with clinicians, who are too scared to prescribe because they do not know what the consequences are. The Minister has a role to play here in enabling them to have the confidence to prescribe and work with the drug that we refer to as cannabis. In this House, we should not be using the word “cannabis”, because it strikes that fear into the hearts of many, many people across the UK. Most other drugs have a single active ingredient; medical cannabis has many. If the Minister does not accept that randomised control trials are not applicable, we are in a Catch-22 situation and we are forever stuck. This is not acceptable.

[Jo Churchill]

I do not believe we are stuck, but we should proceed with caution. I think that is a totally acceptable way to go on. I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh West who asked why it is any different from insulin or the other drugs she listed. It is different, so we must proceed with caution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I am obviously very cognisant of the latter point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead mentioned a court case. This adds to the need to find solutions to the problem. On adult steroids, that is a clinical decision by a doctor, and my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on that, because we are dealing here with incredibly poorly children, and our heart goes out to them.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

The hon. Lady is looking at her phone intently and jumping up again, so I will give way.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way, and she is right that I want to make yet another observation.

One of the reasons why we all came into this House was to make change happen, and I know the Minister feels exactly the same. Maybe her hands are tied, but under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 the Secretary of State has the power to commission an investigation and research into new medicines. End our Pain has shown this to her officials several times; it has even been cited by a Queen’s counsel, whose opinion is that this is possible. This would be a great way to run an observational trial at no cost to parents; why will the Minister not take this option?

[Jo Churchill]

It is not in my gift to take that option, but I will take that comment back to the Health Secretary and have further discussions. As I said, in our very first meeting he highlighted this as an area where he wanted to see movement, and we are determined to get some movement.

We need the evidence base and we need trials to be ongoing to help inform future commissioning decisions. NHS England has also established a patient registry to collect uniform outcome data from licensed and unlicensed products. The refractory epilepsy specialist clinical advisory service has been established to provide expert impartial advice for clinicians treating complex cases while we await the outcome of clinical trials.

I hope I have managed to convey how committed I am, because I do believe that we ought to be able to find the solution for these children, and I was very aware of the hon. Lady’s point about what happens when they reach adulthood. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has spoken to me about the fact that as children move through and medicines gets better they thankfully survive longer, but then we have the added complexity of having to look at the system, which is why we want to make sure we find a solution. Finding the right solution is what we are after, because it will take time to generate further evidence and see the results of clinical trials. I do understand, however, that patients and families continue to access these medicines privately, and that the cost of doing so is very high. There are no easy or quick solutions, but I am committed that the Department will reconsider what action the Government may reasonably take with regard to access to unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use where clinically appropriate.

The health of the children and adults dealing so courageously with these difficult-to-treat conditions is of paramount importance. I think it was Hannah who said to me that for every time Alfie does not end up in hospital having fitted repeatedly, there is a saving to the system.

Cervical Screening

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 317336, relating to cervical screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, for this really important debate. I apologise for not being able to be there in person today, but I thank the House for these hybrid proceedings because I was pinged last week.

I will begin by putting on the record my huge thanks to Caitlin, who is Fiona’s sister, for speaking to me last week about Fiona’s case and the way that it has affected her whole family. I also thank Fiona’s friends, Melissa Macdonald and Niamh Foley, who started the petition, and all those who have signed it, which led to this debate being held today.

As a woman, I know that we all sort of dread getting the call-up for our smear test. For most women, it is not painful, but it is uncomfortable and awkward. What can someone even chat about when the nurse is having her little look? But why should it be like that? We have all been there; the nurse has seen it all before. It is just not spoken about, so we feel a sense of shame about it. It is time we stopped being so coy about it, because that may well persuade more women to go for screening and ultimately it may save lives.

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women under 35, and 99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by human papillomavirus, or HPV. In recent years, testing for HPV has meant that it is easier to identify who is at greater risk from cervical cancer at the earliest stage.

During covid, England had an attendance rate for smear tests of 72%, which means that more than one in four women are not going for screening when invited to do so. The wonderful charity Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has a number of ideas to increase the uptake of smear tests, and I suggest that the Minister meets it to discuss ways of increasing the number of women being tested; I know that she has a keen interest in women’s health.

I was really moved when I spoke to Caitlin, because I got a real sense of how difficult it must be to lose a sister, especially at such a young age. Fiona was only 30 when she died. She was married to Andrew and was the mother of two young children. When Fiona died, Ivy was only four and Harry had just turned two. As Caitlin said, Fiona used all her strength to stick around for Harry’s second birthday.

Fiona was called for her first smear test in 2015, but she was pregnant with Ivy and so was told not to go. When she was called again, she was pregnant with Harry, but there was no follow-up to the first appointment. Fiona never received a reminder to go to her smear test in the interim. This situation is not about someone missing appointments when called to attend them; Fiona went to every appointment that she was meant to go to.

Fiona’s cancer was finally diagnosed after a routine smear test in 2018. She did not have any symptoms, but there seemed to be a lot of hold-ups and delays before her cancer was diagnosed. Caitlin mentioned that it could perhaps have been because of Fiona and Andrew moving from England to Scotland that Fiona received her first invitation. That raises questions about communications between the devolved Administrations and about what procedures are in place to make sure that communication between different trusts and devolved countries is clear.

A hysterectomy was performed and Fiona then went through chemotherapy and radiotherapy as a belt-and-braces approach to dealing with the cancer. After that, Fiona had a number of visits to A&E, including one where the doctor later admitted that she knew the problem was cancer and not a hernia, but did not say anything as Fiona was seeing a specialist soon after.

Most of us are not medical experts. We rely on doctors to tell us the truth because we do not know what is going on, and that vulnerability is really exposed when we hear such stories. I know it is extremely rare to hear stories such as Fiona’s, and the vast majority of our doctors, nurses and other health service staff really care, but it is shocking none the less.

Before covid hit, cancer services were already struggling due to severe staff shortages. Despite the incredible efforts by staff, a backlog has built up. Relying on current staff, who again have not had a pay rise, to clear the backlog on top of delivering regular services will only lead to burnout. It is just not sustainable. Research from Macmillan Cancer Support in 2017 showed that 2,500 specialist cancer nurses were needed to maintain cancer services. By 2030, we will need 3,700 new nurses—an increase of 124% on 2017 levels. Those figures will also have been hugely impacted by the pandemic. The Government have come forward with their own cancer workforce strategy, which is inadequate, and I implore the Minister to reconsider the plans that they have and come up with something that will really help those living with cancer.

Everything that happened to Fiona came before the pandemic hit last year. We have heard countless times about the delays in diagnosis and treatment that the last 16 months has caused. Approximately 1.5 million smear tests take place every year. With the pressure on the NHS since March 2020, that could mean 1.5 million women missing out on a vital tool in diagnosing cervical cancer.

We know that the rates of covid infection are on the up. Hospitalisations for covid are rising, and some NHS trusts across the UK are already cancelling operations as they are at capacity. The recklessness of so-called “freedom day” in England and the removal of all the measures that have been in place to keep us safe is therefore unbelievable. Putting the immunosuppressed at risk, such as those going through cancer treatment, is downright dangerous, and I am glad that the devolved nations have taken a more cautious approach.

What will the extra pressure on the health service mean? Another delay in getting a smear test. And what will that do to the outcomes for so many young women? What will the Government do to make sure that those women who miss out are not left behind, and to stop a knock-on effect on testing? We are looking at new ways forward. Fiona’s case has highlighted some of the gaps that were there before the pandemic started, and things have only deteriorated since covid hit. We must work together to make sure that cancer services are the best that they can possibly be, and that our cancer workforce is protected and given all the tools that it needs to continue to save lives.

When Fiona got really ill, her daughter Ivy used to ask why mummy had to spend so much time in bed. To stop another family having to answer those questions, I want the Minister to answer the questions that Fiona’s family and friends, and all of those who have lost someone to cervical cancer, need answers to. What procedures are in place to make sure that women like Fiona do not fall through the cracks? How does that work across the devolved nations? What is the current screening backlog? What plans to increase the cancer workforce are currently in place?

Caitlin finished our meeting by saying that any change that could come from this debate—if one life is saved, or if one family does not have to go through what her family have been through—would make it worth it.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call John Lamont, I have to say that even though the attendants have been fantastic in helping with the air conditioning, it is still very warm, so if hon. Members want to remove jackets, they should feel free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi [V]]

I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his contribution. As Andrew Mathewson’s MP, he made a heartfelt contribution on behalf of Fiona’s family and all her friends. In the really powerful and very personal speech of my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), we heard about the serious risks that missing a screening can cause. Her story is a stark reminder of the importance of keeping appointments and being tested regularly.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) touched on many of the groups that are less likely to attend their appointments and the Government’s duty of care to improve messaging to those in harder-to-reach communities. In fact, in her intervention on the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd highlighted the fact that non-binary and trans men should not miss their cervical screening appointment, and that it is important to record biological sex on medical records to ensure that that does not happen.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very clear in his message that screening is not a test for cancer but a test to prevent cancer. That is a really important message to get across to all women. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) highlighted the fact that not one trust in England achieved 80% coverage of the test. He highlighted the work of Hologic, a cutting-edge company in his constituency that specialises in high-volume population screening. We need to take full advantage of that resource when beating cancer.

I echo the call of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford): if you have vaginal discharge or bleeding, go and see your GP—not your MP—and do not wait for an invitation. She also mentioned the 30% to 4.5% reduction as a result of the HPV vaccine. She noted the difficulties that physically disabled people have in attending their cervical smears. The Minister spoke about the self-sampling project that is going to be rolled out nationwide, which is going to be key to getting as many women as possible to attend cervical screening tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) drew on his vast knowledge of health issues and made a powerful case for building back better our screening capabilities and using all of the available technological advances that have been mentioned today.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her comments. I am glad that Members, cross-party and from all of the devolved countries of the UK have been able to discuss this issue sensibly. The bottom line is that we must improve take-up and we must talk about it, because screening saves lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 317336, relating to cervical screening.

Covid-19 Update

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that we cannot stress enough. We all, especially developed countries, have a role to play in making sure that we get the vaccines around the world. The UK approach is focused on outcomes and on getting as many people as possible vaccinated globally. The best way to do that is to allow the work that we have done here—the research and the proving of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine—to be replicated and manufactured everywhere at cost. That is a better approach because it protects future intellectual property values and allows for the research money to go into new vaccines and variant vaccines. It does not undermine the system of intellectual property, which is the underpinning concept of all pharmaceutical development, yet at the same time it makes sure that we get people vaccinated around the world. This country should be incredibly proud that we have helped vaccinate over 400 million people, with many hundreds of millions more to come.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

On Saturday, my friends and I put on our trainers and walked 26 miles in Gower to raise a bucketload of cash for the fantastic breast cancer charity Walk the Walk. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I know only too well the devastating impact that the pandemic has had on cancer services. One of the key ways in which the Secretary of State can help with the Government’s goals to recover from the pandemic is by ensuring that we have enough well-trained and motivated NHS staff now and into the future. What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure a comprehensive, multi-year funding settlement for the NHS in the autumn spending review? Will he meet me and Macmillan Cancer Support to discuss this urgent matter?

[Matt Hancock]

I am always very happy to meet the hon. Lady, who works incredibly hard on this topic. I am delighted to say that the recovery of cancer services is going well and that in many of the centres, the rate of diagnosis, testing and surgery is above 100% of 2019 levels. That is very important. Of course, we are working towards the spending review. The NHS has a long-term baseline settlement, but on top of that we are putting extra money into the recovery that she rightly champions. I would be delighted to talk to her more about it.

Women’s Health Strategy

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I have no idea what the women’s health strategy is going to contain because we have not had the evidence yet. We do not want to decide in advance where we are going to go with it; we are going to wait to hear women’s voices before we do that. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned in my statement, there is a geographic disparity in many areas. I think that, as part of the evidence that we receive from women, that will become very apparent. I hope that she will be involved, click on the link herself and direct any women she knows who could be involved to do so.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

The pandemic has seen us make dramatic changes in how we live, and the impact of these changes has been especially sharply felt by women. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that mothers are only able to do, on average, a third of the uninterrupted paid work hours of fathers, so is it any wonder that six out of 10 women are finding it harder to stay positive day to day compared with 47% of men? What are the Government going to do to ensure that there is support available for these women, whose labour is paid and unpaid, and who have been instrumental in getting the country through this pandemic? What will the Minister do?

[Ms Dorries]

That is not strictly a health question but, on the mental health issues that I think the hon. Lady was referring to—the stress and other issues that women are feeling—I hope she will encourage the women she knows to click the link and contribute to the call for evidence.

Covid-19

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

I wish to raise two very pressing issues in the debate this evening. Both are very close to my heart and affect many of my constituents. For months, stories have been coming out of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of wholly unacceptable working conditions in the buildings in Swansea East. I have had so many concerns raised with me by my constituents, and each and every one of them ends with, “Please don’t mention my name.” When I ask them why, they just describe a fear. They say they do not want to be singled out—they do not want to be that person who has caused any trouble. For those who are employees of the DVLA and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, a ballot paper on industrial action will have landed on their desks today. There is an obvious worry that the 2,000 or so DVLA workers who are already working from home might not think that this dispute concerns them, but indeed it does, because standing by their colleagues who have put themselves at risk by physically going on to Government premises is the very reason why this is so important.

It is also unacceptable that the Secretary of State for Transport and the chief executive of the DVLA have refused substantially to change their position and have blocked more staff from working from home. It is incumbent on them now to face up to their responsibilities and to look after their workers.

On another crucial matter, we have been told on a number of occasions that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is responsible for deciding the prioritisation of the groups receiving the vaccine. I have been generally supportive of that approach, but there seems to be a gaping hole in the groups being vaccinated. My constituent, Rev. John Gillibrand, has contacted me as he is very, very worried about his son, Adam Gillibrand. Adam has a learning disability and lives in a care home. This care home is able to provide him with the extra support that he needs. Adam has challenging behaviour, and the associated strain that it would put on the NHS if he were to be taken ill is significant. As has been recently highlighted in the media —John was on “Newsnight” only last week—people with a learning disability are up to six times more likely to die from coronavirus. Those under the age of 34 are 30 times more likely to die than their peers. That is an extraordinary disparity that needs to be immediately addressed and remedied. What is so disappointing is that, earlier, the Prime Minister blundered through a non-answer on this issue, but real action needs to be taken. I have today written to the Secretary of State for Health asking him to look at this issue as a matter of urgency for Adam Gillibrand and for all others with a learning disability.

Covid-19 Update

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I will. The vaccination effort right across Yorkshire has been absolutely fantastic, including in West Yorkshire, which my hon. Friend represents, and in South Yorkshire. Yorkshire has just pulled this one out of the bag. We will deliver on that offer to everybody in the top four vulnerable categories by 15 February—in just under two weeks’ time. Then we will get on and vaccinate all the others who are in the vulnerable cohorts. I know that it is hard work, but it is so uplifting. I am really glad to see that happening right across Yorkshire.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

In answer to my written question to the Home Office, I was informed that Border Force does not hold records of the number of staff who have tested positive for covid-19 in the past 12 months. We have seen the DVLA in Swansea unable to give the Transport Committee the correct number of staff who tested positive for covid-19 let alone a breakdown by Department. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with his Cabinet colleagues and Government agencies to ensure the safety of essential civil servants who are unable to work from home?

[Matt Hancock]

We are having those conversations all the time. In fact, I spoke to both the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary about this issue yesterday, ensuring that we have widespread workplace testing available for all civil servants right across the UK.

Vaccine Roll-out

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are aware that there are some care homes in which the take-up by staff is not universal—not 100%—although I do not quite recognise the specific figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. I am glad to say that in some parts of the country where a team have gone into a care home and not all the staff have taken the vaccine, when they have returned a couple of weeks later they have been able to complete the roll-out to staff because the staff have been reassured, having seen the roll-out to their colleagues and residents, that it is okay to get the vaccine. The good news is that, overall, take-up and enthusiasm for take-up are very high. We have been hearing today of some cases where there has been a 100% take-up among residents of care homes, and I am really pleased about that. I am particularly pleased that the overall enthusiasm to get the vaccine among the population as a whole has risen quite substantially over the last six weeks. We have worked very hard on this. It is an incredibly important issue and we absolutely have a plan in place to address it.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that people living with a terminal cancer diagnosis are to be included in the vulnerable groups for vaccination?

[Matt Hancock]

The vulnerable groups are set out clinically. Those who are clinically extremely vulnerable include those to whom we have written, in some cases regularly, during the pandemic. That is a clinical decision, and I think it is right that it should be a clinical decision.

Long Covid

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]]

As we all know, long covid is a very real issue that many of our constituents are dealing with; indeed, colleagues and former colleagues from this House are also suffering from the effects of post-viral symptoms. My friend and former colleague Jo Platt has been a great campaigner on this issue, but after 10 months of living with the disease, little progress seems to have been made. She told me that some of the online support groups have been a lifeline to her, and have helped her to find treatment, which in turn has eased some of the symptoms. However, this comes with an associated cost: Jo has told me that her supplements bill is around £90 a month. What happens to those people who cannot afford to purchase those supplements? Where is their support?

My constituent, Amy Seddon, has also contacted me about her journey. For months, she had no idea what was wrong with her, until she also found this online support and many of the pieces started to fall into place, as they would. Amy has been taking part in the COVERSCAN study, through which her own scans have shown liver changes and potential kidney issues that could have an effect on her life for many years to come. As an MP and an employer, I have two members of my staff battling with the symptoms of long covid. It is a reality for all of us.

One of the most difficult problems is that people are experiencing such diverse symptoms: some experience breathlessness, some joint pain, some anxiety, and some experience all of these together. However, we know that for all of the people who are affected by long covid, extreme fatigue is the biggest problem. GPs are not universally aware of the symptoms and are playing catch-up with long covid. I understand the huge pressures that have been put on the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, but there is some Government short-sightedness in dealing with this, and that is unacceptable.

It is not just a matter of further strain on our health service; the economic impact of people who may suffer from chronic conditions for years needs to be managed in a sustainable way. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is unable to join us today, has heard from many of her constituents who are suffering. Sam, a care worker, is unable to work because of the pain caused by this debilitating condition. People going back to work before they are ready and then having to take further sick days has an impact on their long-term prospects, and that is not fair to anyone. We need strong leadership from the UK Government and from the devolved Administrations to deal with long covid.

Covid-19 Vaccination Roll-out

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 554316 relating to roll-out of covid-19 vaccinations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David, and an honour to lead for the Petitions Committee in this debate. Some may note that, owing to the latest restrictions and recommendations from Mr Speaker, many hon. Members are unable to attend Westminster Hall in person. For reasons beyond the comprehension of the sensible, there is a reluctance by the Leader of the House to make these debates accessible virtually to all Members, so I ask the petition’s signatories not to be disappointed if they feel that their voices have not been heard; I have been contacted by many Members of Parliament and hope to reflect what many of them have told me.

The initial petition to be debated is entitled “Prioritise teachers, school and childcare staff for Covid-19 vaccination” and was set up by Charlotte. It has close to 460,000 signatures and the number is rising all the time. A newer petition related to the debate has also been tagged, which calls for first responders to be prioritised alongside NHS workers. It was set up by Laura Sylvester and had nearly 49,000 signatures when I last checked.

I want to be clear from the start that this debate is not about leapfrogging others who deserve the vaccine; it is about ensuring that our teachers, school staff and first responders are able to access the vaccine—it is them on the frontline every day delivering vital services. When I spoke to Charlotte, a primary schoolteacher from High Peak, she was so mindful of the necessity of vaccinating those people on the list already, but teachers want consideration of where they are placed on that list. Only NHS staff and healthcare workers have been considered as priority groups by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, but I and many others think that overlooks the role that teachers and frontline workers have already played during the pandemic, and the contribution that they will continue to make.

The advice from the JCVI on the priority groups for a covid-19 vaccine, as stated in the petitions, does not include school and childcare workers. The petition therefore calls for those workers who cannot distance or use personal protective equipment to be kept safe at work by being put on the vaccine priority list, and for that to be adopted into Government policy. Some correspondence that I have received since the fact of the debate was published stated that to hold such a debate was a waste of parliamentary time, and that to question the conclusions of the JCVI was to undermine its decisions. However, the role of Parliament is to debate and to scrutinise the Government. The Petitions Committee is a vehicle for genuine first-hand concerns to be expressed on behalf of everyday people. I am honoured to be able to do so.

As a former teacher, I recognise that education is the greatest gift that we can give to our future generations—those who will be facing the consequences not only of the pandemic but of Brexit. My own son has had his centre-assessed GCSEs and now his AS-levels affected. It is far from what any of us ever imagined would happen. How do we get children back into school and in front of their teachers?

We know the consequences of missing school, especially for the most deprived, and those consequences lead to a widening of the attainment gap. Research by the charity Teach First suggests that school closures risk further contributing to that problem through the digital divide: 84% of schools with the poorest pupils do not have enough devices or internet access to ensure that pupils can learn from home, compared with 66% of schools in the most affluent areas. Access to technology, family home environments and economic pressures suggest that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to miss out on learning as a result of being at home.

There needs to be a plan, there needs to be a back-up plan and there needs to be a plan for the unthinkable. Getting teachers, and therefore pupils, back into school must be one of the key aims for this Government, and that should be reflected in the prioritisation of the vaccine. Think about how much contact a teacher has with human beings in one day, where there is no social distancing or it is practically impossible. Teachers see vast amounts of children in a week, according to a normal timetable, so there are many opportunities for the virus to spread.

We need to give children and young adults the best chance in life, and that always starts with their education. I can tell anyone who has not worked in the classroom environment that it is hard to comprehend the challenges that our teachers face every day. We cannot expect teachers to work in an unsafe environment. Schools have spent a lot of time making their environment safe, and the consensus among teachers is that they cannot give their best through online teaching. Teachers do what they do to inspire, develop skills, build confidence, entertain and impart knowledge. They want to be back in the classroom and to change the lives of the children they teach and want to teach.

The NASUWT has presented evidence showing that staff working in both secondary and primary schools are far more likely to be infected than the wider community, with rates of virus prevalence among school staff being three to four times higher than the prevalence rate for non-teachers. I welcome the announcement made last week by the Welsh Government about prioritising teaching and support staff in special schools. Those schools have remained open throughout the pandemic to support children classed as vulnerable. It is right that they are able to continue to deliver the excellent, vital support that they provide to families of children with additional needs. The Government must also give due consideration to those who deliver childcare in nursery settings. They are the carers of our youngest children. Those settings do not traditionally fall within education, but they must not, because of that, be forgotten.

It is pertinent that England’s deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, suggested that teachers and other frontline workers could be included in the next stage of vaccinations, which will cover the next five priority groups, including the over-50s and those with risky underlying health conditions. Many MPs from across the House agree that the reconsideration of the JCVI prioritisation schedule is necessary. Can the Minister give assurances that the JCVI will reconsider vaccine reprioritisation for certain professions? Will he be able to lay out the comprehensive plan for school leaders and local authorities that will provide the necessary financial and logistical support to implement the plans?

Although I have spoken mainly to teachers, the additional petition talks about the UK Government and the JCVI considering prioritising first responders alongside NHS carers and workers. To put that request into context, it is helpful to highlight the fact that, across the UK, there are just over 210,000 first responders and emergency service workers. It is not beyond the wit of man to make them a priority. Because first responders have an

“increased level of exposure with the general public every day and lack of regular testing”

they are at a higher risk of contracting covid-19 and transmitting it to the public. Losing our first responders on the frontline puts the public at risk of not being served when they most need it. Prioritising vaccines will help to ensure

“protection and safety of their health whilst carrying out their jobs on the frontline”

and lower

“the risk of easily contracting/transmitting COVID-19 to co-workers, their families, and the general public”.

The reprioritisation of the JCVI list is necessary. Government cannot just say, “This is what the JCVI says,” and that that must therefore be set in stone.

However, there is another consideration that the Government could use to address their concerns. That is laid out in “A Plan for Vaccine Acceleration” published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change on 3 January:

“Almost 1 million people in the United Kingdom have received their first-dose vaccination against Covid-19. This is a Herculean effort from the NHS, which must be applauded. But in the situation we face, it is unfortunately not sufficient.”

That is not a criticism of the NHS. It is a reflection on the planning and strategy of the Government. If the Minister and the Department would consider following that plan for vaccine acceleration, there might be some hope on the horizon of our children returning to education and frontline workers carrying out their jobs fear-free, because our teachers and frontline workers, and our children, deserve better.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, there are a number of changes. First, you will have noticed that there is a statement in the House, so the Minister and shadow spokesman are still detained there. I am sure that colleagues will be kind to the two Members standing in their place, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but everyone should bear in mind that they did not expect to be in that position. Furthermore, a number of Members who are on the call list have disappeared and not come back, and are not in the Chamber, so the order in which I call Members will be Opposition, Government, Opposition. I shall try to indicate the order to you. I call Craig Williams.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and a great delight to be called earlier than I expected. I welcome the tone in which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) introduced the petition. She has given a great voice to both petitions. I echo the statement that this is a very worthy and timely debate—anybody who has been filling her inbox to say the contrary is wrong.

There is an undertone of great political agreement about the JCVI’s recommendations, because we have Governments of different colours across the United Kingdom. We have a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government in Wales—the Education Minister is of the Liberal persuasion, but they are primarily a Labour Government. We have a Conservative Government in Westminster, and we have a Scottish National party Government in Scotland. Broadly, however, the JCVI has stacked up in its entirety in its recommendations.

I accept the spirit of the petitions and the recommendation for frontline workers and teachers to have early vaccinations. I had my county chair of the National Farmers Union on the phone this morning, and he was pleading for farmers and people working in food processing and in important sectors supplying food—not just to our hospitals, but to our entire country—to receive special treatment as the vaccinations are rolled out. There is a huge lobby around this issue. I cannot think of a better call-up in short order than the Minister, and I am expecting an excellent reply, but we really need a vaccination programme that speeds up at pace across the whole United Kingdom. I will make a number of asks in my short contribution—I know a lot of Members wish to speak.

Although I broadly support the intent of the petitions, I stand squarely behind the recommendations made thus far by the JCVI. We are in the right phasing. The hon. Member for Gower was right to look at opening up the next round of vaccinations, but my plea is to get vaccinating as quickly as possible. We have seen different stages of planning across the United Kingdom. As a Welsh Member, I know we are at a different stage in Wales from the one in England. We also see a different phase of the roll-out in Scotland. My plea is to get vaccinating the groups identified by the JCVI as quickly as possible, and then to vaccinate the wider population. I can see the hon. Lady gearing up—I will certainly give way if she wants, knowing my Welsh colleague well.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. If schools will be returning to normal practice after half-term in February—that is where we are now, practically across the United Kingdom—does he agree that there is real urgency to know what is going to be different this time round? What will be put in place this time round? That is why there is an urgent need to revisit the vaccination programme.

[Craig Williams]

As the father of an eight-year-old and a four-year-old starting their education, I know home-schooling presents a challenge. I dare say that nobody present wants the schools reopened more quickly than I do, but let us be clear that we need to vaccinate in this country to keep deaths down. Of course education is of primary importance, and people would expect a father of young children to echo what is being said up and down the country, but the JCVI has made it clear that the first phases will tackle the mortality rate. It has to be the priority of Members in this Chamber and our Governments across the United Kingdom to keep the mortality rate as low as possible.

There are a couple of things that I will ask the Minister to focus on. I would like information published about how many vaccines are being delivered to the devolved Administrations, so that we can hold their feet to the fire on their delivery. I want to see how many vaccines are being supplied. We can then evaluate roll-out processes in the light of day, rather than operate as we are doing now.

I would like further consideration of what can be done for frontline first responders and teachers in future roll-outs. How do they feature? My key ask, however, is that we be as transparent as possible with the vaccine roll-out. We need communication not just with our teachers and first responders, but across the country, to make it clear when people can expect vaccinations and when the schools will fully reopen, so that we can say goodbye to Zoom—especially those of us with a four-year-old. When can people expect their local vaccine centres, GPs, or, I hope and pray eventually in Wales, community pharmacists to get involved in the frontline delivery of vaccines?

My plea today is that we follow the clear guidance from the JCVI and the ambition to keep mortality rates as low as possible, but that we are transparent with our teachers and our constituents to make sure that they see this roll out at speed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. Standing here in lockdown again, with the Chancellor telling the House this afternoon that it is going to get worse before it gets better, I have to say that 2021 is starting to look a lot like 2020.

I could support lockdown 3 last week, whereas I could not support the lockdown in November, because we finally have the ultimate release from the deadly cycle of lockdown and release in the form of the covid vaccine. I warmly welcome the “UK COVID-19 vaccines delivery plan”, published this afternoon. We need to study it, and we will, but the figures suggest we have made a strong start. As the Health Secretary said in Downing Street this afternoon, 2.6 million jabs have been given to 2.3 million people, according to the very latest figures.

I welcome the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is responsible for many of the jabs. He has taken his seat at exactly the right time, because I agree with the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), that we should vaccinate 24/7. I think there will be an appetite for that. The idea of key workers being vaccinated overnight and perhaps those in the older categories during the day if they do not want it during the night is absolutely fine. Let us at least give them the opportunity. It might be cold and it might be dark, but I will make the tea.

There is no question but that we will see problems, and the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that. Supply is going to be lumpy in the next few days, and that is creating problems. I cannot hide from that. We are off to a flier in my constituency of Winchester, way ahead of many areas. In fact, one primary care network in my district has already delivered more jabs than the whole of France. None the less, it is very frustrating that just today a raft of appointments made for this week in my constituency has had to be postponed because of supply problems. We cannot doubt the fact that this hits public confidence. I thank the Minister for Vaccines for his engagement with me and the primary care network involved this weekend, and plead with him to help us get this corrected and get the deliveries into this part of Hampshire, so that these appointments can be made good and carried out as soon as possible.

Looking at the delivery plan, such as I have been able to this afternoon, I agree about the publishing of data. Daily national data is so important—transparency is our best weapon—but daily regional data will also be really important. I want to see areas with enough supply almost competing to better each other. If Lancashire is doing better than Yorkshire, I have a funny feeling that Yorkshire will want to do better than Lancashire. That is the sort of national effort that we need to see right now. We need to jab for victory, get covid done—whatever three-word slogan the Minister chooses. Let’s do it.

As the Minister knows, it is my strong belief that these awful restrictions on our lives cannot be in place for a day longer than they are required, so alongside the published vaccine delivery plan and the daily figures on how we are getting this done, we have to give the public some hope. In the past hour or so, the Secretary of State has said at the No. 10 press conference that just over 88% of those likely to get seriously unwell and sadly die from covid reside within the top four priority vaccine groups. My view is that given that the only metric that really counts, and the reason why public support for lockdown is so high, is the desire to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, logic would dictate that once that threat has gone away, we can start to lift the restrictions. We need clear heads if we want to do that. Covid-19 is not a conspiracy or a hoax. We were right to take it seriously last spring, and we are right to take it seriously now, but we are equally right to demand a plan that dismantles the most draconian laws this Parliament has brought in in centuries, and to do so in lockstep with the vaccination programme that we have.

We know the plan commits the Government to vaccinate the top four groups by 15 February, which is great. As Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, grimly reminds us, we expect between 7,000 and 10,000 deaths from flu each year in an average year. The most cautious reading would suggest that the vaccination programme should take covid deaths well below this level, so when we have vaccinated the highest-risk groups, what will we do? When we have completed phase 1 by vaccinating all those with above-average risk in late March, what will we do then? These are important questions, and ones that I will keep asking. We do not lock society down for common colds or seasonal flu; we cannot do the same for the little-understood condition that is long covid, no matter how awful it can be. The many other economic, health and societal impacts of this pandemic are already serious enough, so we need a clear road map out of this that the public can believe in, or this year is going to make the last look tame by comparison.

The petition is right to look at the next phase of the vaccination strategy, but there are so many competing groups asking to be put in the front of that next phase. Supermarket checkout staff interact with huge numbers of people from multiple households, more than any teacher would during any working day. What about police officers? Just this afternoon, I had an email from a constituent telling me about the work that her son is doing in London. Maybe they should be top of the next queue. Pharmacists are going to play a very central role—I declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for even mentioning pharmacists. They are brilliant, and as a former pharmacy Minister, I can say they are going to play a brilliant role in the roll-out of this. Maybe they should be top of the next phase’s queue.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about prioritisation, teachers range from early years to further and higher education, and have widespread responsibilities and contacts, including intimate care with young children? Think of a secondary schoolteacher, carrying their bags around to each and every classroom in which they have to teach under certain systems that have been put in place. I cannot think of another group of people who have that much contact with other humans, and I cannot stress that enough.

[Steve Brine]

I do not disagree. The hon. Lady probably thinks that I am working up to disagreeing with the premise of the petition. I am not. The point that I am making, before I agree with the premise, is that there are so many competing groups and, while supply is lumpy—supply is limited at the moment—we have to prioritise, which is why phase 1 has to be right.

My overriding message is this. Let us get on with it. Let us have this national programme. Let us implement the vaccine delivery plan. And then we will put all these groups in. With regard to teachers, I absolutely agree: if reopening and keeping open schools is the Government’s priority, and the Westminster Government say that it is, surely it is good sense, let alone good politics, to vaccinate educators. I say “educators” because of course it is not just teachers, but support workers and all the other people who make schools happen. That must make sense, but I will just say that if we are going to have schools reopened at the end of half-term, we have almost, now, lost the opportunity to do that, because we have to give people the jab and then allow three weeks for it to take effect. That now cannot happen before the end of half-term, so there will be a gap, however we cut this particular cake.

Let me finish by talking about early years, which people would expect me to do as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on childcare and early education. The JCVI obviously identified its groups, and some early years workers will be covered by the groups involving the clinically extremely vulnerable and

“all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality”.

It is not the case that no teachers and no early years workers will be covered in phase 1; of course some will be. With regard to phase 2, the JCVI states:

“Vaccination of those at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their occupation could…be a priority in the next phase.”

Its suggested list includes teachers, and I believe that early years workers should be a high priority, based on two key factors.

First, unlike schools, the early years sector is currently open to all children, meaning that staff are coming into contact with similar numbers of children as they were prior to the latest national lockdown. Secondly, it is of course impossible to socially distance from babies and young children. They need close personal care, such as changing nappies, treating cuts and just giving them a cuddle when they bump themselves. All early years settings are currently open to all children, and of course that is vital in providing continuity of care and early education to the youngest children, but with regard to supporting those settings and keeping them open and keeping those staff safe, I think that they have a strong case. Why are they treated differently? That was what the hon. Member for Leeds North West said. Well, early years workers are a fairly mild bunch. They do not have a powerful trade union often speaking up for them. They have only me and a few other people in the House of Commons. And that is possibly the reason why.

This petition makes a lot of sense. I think that, for every person who has signed the petition, that comes from a good place. I think that it comes from a will to see schools, educators and young people treated fairly and kept safe from this awful pandemic. Anything that we can do to roll out the vaccine delivery plan, which the excellent Minister, now in his place, will ensure happens, will move us out of this nightmare, and then maybe I can stop being a grinch about 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

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

[Ian Paisley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman predicts the journey I am about to embark on. I will talk about that very legitimate point, which hon. Members have raised. AstraZeneca promised 30 million doses by September, but that went down to 4 million by the end of the year and, clearly, much less has been delivered on the ground. All the best plans possible will not matter if the supply is not there. Various Members have raised this issue, so when he responds, I hope the Minister will set out the exact position in terms of supply. How many doses have been received to date from each manufacturer? How many are expected each week? What are the weekly projections for delivery?

I will give the Minister a local example. My vaccination centre in Ellesmere Port is due to open sometime this week, but nobody knows exactly when because nobody knows when the first delivery will arrive. One thing this country is not short of is logistics experts. The Vaccine Taskforce is supposed to have been addressing this for months, so those on the frontline should not have been put in the position of not knowing when the vaccine is going to arrive. No vaccine should be left on the shelves, in warehouses or stuck at a factory gate waiting to be delivered. Greater transparency would be much appreciated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, we could do with a performance dashboard covering not just the total figures published each week, but the proportionate numbers in each category of the priority list, including NHS staff—at clinical commissioning group level as well as nationally—so that everyone can see what progress is being made. There are references to that in the document that was produced today.

Turning to the subject matter of the petition, we know from what SAGE has said that schools are making a significant contribution to the R rate and that, with infections running out of control, the closure of schools—except for vulnerable children and the children of key workers—was, sadly, inevitable. As we have said, however, there are multiple reasons why reopening them has to be a priority, not least the importance of getting children back into the classroom. Although we could not go against the JCVI priority list—indeed, it is likely that a change now would be counterproductive—we believe that, as with the change to the period between the first and second doses, serious consideration needs to be given to the order in which the vaccine should be distributed after the initial phase. Indeed, I think Sir Simon Stevens has said as much today.

Of course, it is worth pointing out that the most clinically vulnerable adults who work in education will receive the vaccine shortly anyway, and we believe that the priority should be to increase the number of people who have received the first dose, so that debates over prioritisation become obsolete. However, if that is not possible, we believe that it is more than reasonable to look not only at the risk posed by particular workplaces but at the wider societal benefits of vaccinating particular groups of workers.

I hope that we have sufficient supplies and delivery networks so that we do not end up in a position where particular groups of workers are pitted against one another, but clearly there is a strong case for priority to be given to those working in education settings. At this point, may I thank everyone who works in education for their contribution? I know how hard many of them worked over the Christmas period to prepare for the mass testing regimes, and we could all hear their exasperation when they were asked to revert to remote working at 24 hours’ notice. I am afraid that some of that exasperation actually turned to anger when the Education Secretary delivered his warning that Ofsted could become involved if online learning was not up to scratch. If ever there was a sentence that summed up how he is not listening to the education world, that was it.

When I talk about education, I mean education in the widest sense. As various Members have said today, that includes all those who come into close contact with others as part of their job in an educational setting. For example, if we look at those in special educational needs settings, we see that they are often in much closer contact with others than most people. It is not just teachers whom we must consider but classroom assistants, cleaners, cooks and probably just about everyone who works in a school. We are not only talking about schools; as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, nurseries and other childcare settings should be looked at. However, for reasons that are not entirely clear, they remain open at this time. I think we can all see how, in those settings, it can be very difficult to avoid close contact with others.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Just to reiterate, everyone in an educational setting should be prioritised for vaccination. Also, what about student teachers? Does my hon. Friend agree that they need to be prioritised too?

[Justin Madders]

Yes. I think we have to look at the actual work that they do and the risk on the ground, but clearly student teachers would be part of that process.

There are strong arguments for those in other essential services to be given additional priority. There has been much talk of the police and their role in enforcing covid rules; if 20,000 police officers had not been cut in the past decade, the police might not be in such a difficult place to do that. We should remember that when the police go about their duties, they engage with the public and so, by definition, they put themselves at risk of infection.

Similar arguments could be made for those involved in the vaccination process—not just NHS staff but those who are volunteering. In relation to that, can the Minister update us on how many retired NHS staff have now passed all the requirements in this regard, so that they can assist in the vaccination process? We have all heard the stories about the fire safety training modules that have to be taken; although such requirements are worthy in their own right, it cannot be mission-critical at the moment for those tests to be undertaken. I can put it no better than the retired consultant who contacted me and said:

“This is actually more than I was required to do when I was a full-time NHS consultant. It is grossly excessive, unnecessary and burdensome.”

On the vaccination of NHS staff, we know the unprecedented pressures they are facing at the moment; the latest estimate is that there are some 46,000 NHS staff off sick with covid, and that is before we even consider those who are required to self-isolate. The need for a full complement of NHS staff to be available to work cannot be clearer, so we want to see all NHS staff receiving their first dose of the vaccine as soon as possible. There is also a concern about whether those people who are not directly employed by the NHS and instead may be self-employed are being picked up by the system.

In conclusion, we know that at the moment the vaccine programme rightly prioritises the most vulnerable and is designed to protect life. However, as that group of people receives that protection, it is right that we consider where priorities lie next. The nation’s key workers have literally kept the country going in the last 12 months—those in education and in transport, council workers, and many, many others who have gone to work day in and day out, knowing that they risk contracting a deadly virus. They do not deserve to be thanked with a pay freeze. At the very least, they deserve serious consideration for prioritisation in the next phase of the roll-out. Proper recognition of their contribution and of the wider societal benefits of their work demand no less.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

It is slightly unfortunate, Sir David, that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), asked a lot of questions, because he took up a lot of time. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer as many colleagues’ questions as possible.

Before setting out details of the plan for vaccination, I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the incredible passion with which she spoke. I apologise that I was not in the room for her speech—I was in the main Chamber, as she will know—but it has always been our strategy to suppress the coronavirus until a vaccine can make us all safe, because we know ultimately that vaccines are our way out of this terrible pandemic.

This afternoon we launched our complete vaccine deployment plan, the culmination of months of preparation and hard work by the NHS, the armed forces—the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned the armed forces, and they are embedded in the deployment programme—and, of course, local and regional government at every level. The sooner we can reduce mortality from this pernicious disease and bring an end to that human suffering, the better.

It is worth reminding ourselves of just what that suffering looks like. Sadly, yesterday, 563 deaths were reported. The average number of deaths per day over the past week has been 909, and behind every statistic is a person—a father, a mother, a sister, a daughter, a grandfather or a grandmother—with family and friends. We must never lose sight of that.

In the light of the petition that we are discussing and, of course, the time, I will reflect on the basic principles that sit behind our prioritisation and our strategy. Yes, we want to minimise disruption for pupils, parents and teachers; yes, we want to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, and yes, we want to protect UK jobs and businesses as much as we possibly can, but fundamentally it is about saving lives, and operationally it is about saving as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.

I defy anyone to provide more powerful grounds for action in order to achieve that. We are following the science and we are vaccinating, according to the prioritisation by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which recommended rapid immunisation of our most vulnerable groups. It is worth reminding colleagues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) did, about the first four categories, for whom we absolutely are focused on making sure they have the opportunity of a first dose to protect them by mid-February across all four nations.

I know the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and others are concerned about supplies, and he has contacted me about that. I can reassure him that, having spoken to my counterparts in the devolved Administrations that, while the supply lines have been lumpy—in any manufacturing process, especially one so complex as a novel vaccine that is a biological compound, it is always difficult at the outset, but they very quickly stabilise—we have clear line of sight of deliveries all the way through until the end of February, hence we are able to make the pledge that we will be able to deploy.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am conscious of time, and I want to get through quite a lot; I will be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention if I can.

Obviously, if a teacher or a school or childcare worker falls within one of those cohorts, they will be contacted by the NHS at the appropriate time to receive the vaccine, but the importance of starting with our most vulnerable groups cannot be overstated. There is no evidence that teachers or school or childcare workers are at higher risk of mortality. That is the thing: we are protecting against death in this first phase, and our most vulnerable groups account for 88% of mortality; I think my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester gave us that figure earlier. We can safeguard against 88% of mortality if we vaccinate those top four groups, but of course I understand the sentiment behind this petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Teachers, and everybody involved in this petition, do not want to be prioritised beyond those four groups; but, if something is not going to be done, if the lateral flow tests are not going to be in place for all pupils going to school on a regular basis and the vaccination is not going to be available to teachers, is there a possibility that schools will not actually be returning at the end of February, and that this is going to be longer term?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Schools, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) reminded us, are open. Primary and secondary schools are open, delivering both online education and education in school for the most vulnerable children and the children of NHS and social care workers, who look after the people who are most vulnerable and whom we are trying to protect from dying. I understand the sentiment behind the petition and pay tribute to the vital work that teachers in schools and childcare workers do to see us through this difficult time. However, I believe that our strategy of putting the most vulnerable first is the right one, morally, ethically and practically, but I recognise that even with such brilliant work in full swing the next few weeks will be difficult, especially in education settings.

We have always sought to keep schools open, and said that they would be the very last things to close, but the challenges posed by the new variant and the more than doubling of transmissibility mean that we have had to take some difficult decisions. I am confident that as our vaccination programme bears fruit we can begin slowly to move out of lockdown. The Prime Minister has promised that schools will be the very first places to reopen, working on the principle of last in, first out. The hon. Member for Gower asked about testing, and it will continue to play a vital role in getting children back into the classroom as soon as possible.

In the time available to me, I want briefly to turn to some of the questions asked by colleagues. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) rightly reminded us that we do not yet know whether the vaccines have an impact on transmissibility—but they obviously offer protection, in terms of both immunity and protection from severe infection. That is why we are focusing on the most vulnerable people. Of course she was right to highlight the issue of young adults with special educational needs. Some of those will be picked up in category 4, but many will be picked up in category 6 of the top nine categories.

I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) rightly asked whether hospices are included. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, also asked about that. Hospices are absolutely included in the cohorts, and we are focusing on making sure that they are protected. Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and for Winchester, and the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Westmorland and Lonsdale, asked about data. Data is our ally in this endeavour, in the Prime Minister’s view and in my view. That is why he has insisted on daily data release, so that the nation can see the progress that we are making in protecting the most vulnerable people from covid. We will continue to publish daily data. On Thursdays we will publish more detailed regional data, and my absolute commitment to the House is as much data as the NHS feel is robust that we can publish. We all reference our own experiences in life but the best way to learn, in my view, is to learn from different teams. Not everyone can give 1,000 vaccinations a day, as some primary care networks have, but we learn from them and we try to put support into other teams, to enable them to do that. [Interruption.]

I am conscious that the debate ends at 7.30 and I think I have to give the hon. Member for Gower at least a minute to respond, so I will wrap up there. I apologise to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who wanted to intervene, and I would have loved to take his intervention, but I am happy to write to him if he emails me with any other queries. I shall give the hon. Lady the last word.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the Minister for his response and I understand the time pressures that we are currently under and the reason he could not be here earlier, but I remind those watching online that the two debates are both live, and they can still add their names to the petition. Also, on 15 December, UNICEF called for teachers to be prioritised, and we must realise that there are difficult decisions that force difficult trade-offs. They were not asking to be in the top four vaccination priorities, but they need consideration. That begins with safeguarding those who are responsible for opening up the future—looking after the teachers who will give a future to our future generations, and to our children, who have missed so much. I accept all the debate today, and thank the Minister and everyone who took part, but we need to move forward and give the matter that consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 554316 relating to roll-out of covid-19 vaccinations.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

If you have not already done so, colleagues, would you wipe the microphones? I apologise for the ridiculous freezer that this room is. I will complain to the authorities yet again. I am sorry if anyone becomes unwell as a result—this is not acceptable.

Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine today is welcome news, especially for the exciting sporting calendar for 2021, with events such as the Olympics and Paralympics in Japan, the Euros, the Lions tour to South Africa and the women’s rugby world cup in New Zealand, which I must not forget. Concerns have been raised with me about whether sporting competitions will be subject to compulsory vaccination, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of that—not only for elite sport, but for all competitive sport in 2021?

[Matt Hancock]

We have not made such an assessment; we are still in the early days.